The essential history

George

Am excellent article, which should be compulsory reading for many of the people who contribute to this blog. Then maybe we wouldn't have to keep explaining the same things to them over and over again.

Truthtriumphs

Exactly so.
The area of Israel behind the Green Line is only 17.5% of the Palestine Mandate.
The Green Line, anyway, is only the armistice border from 1948.

You could also add, as most people are ignorant of this, that the countries of Saudi Arabia, Trans Jordan (now Jordan),Iraq, Lebanon and Syria were all recent creations, carved out of the vanquished Ottoman Empire, by Britain and France at the same time as the re-creation of the Jewish state was designated in Palestine, yet we never hear of the "right to exist" for those countries.
It is taken as read.

David

"which among other things means that the ‘progressives’ who support it thus support the ethnic cleansing of all Jews from the putative state of Palestine"

I take it, then, you support a one state solution with as many Arabs who want to live there doing so?

Indigo121

You know what, Melanie? I would settle for the current borders. I would settle for the '67 borders. I would give away the Golan heights. I would give 100% of the west bank.
-
I would do all these things for true peace. And so would 90% of Israelis.
-
But for TRUE peace- no more Hizbollah, no more Hamas, no more Iranian nuclear program, no more systematic anti-semetism in the Arab world. No more terror.
-
But I can't imagine any of these things happening...

Michael B

Israel - 20.7 thousand sq. kilometers
Iran - 1.65 million sq. kilometers (Iran only)

Francois

What, throughout history, are the British not responsible for? They once ruled the world so therefore every skirmish and dispute that follows after they relinquished power is forever linked to them, no?

Ruairidh

I think it rather funny that Philips fulminates about 'Arab Terror' when this one sided article fails to mention the Jewish terrorism that was happening at the time. Kidnaps, bombings, assasinatons by the Irgun etc. that directly resulted in a hardening of British policy against Jewish immigration. Is it any wonder they wanted to restrict immigration when immigration was the cause of intercommunal violence and anti-British terrorism? How can an article cover this bit of history and fail to mention this? Because it is history with an agenda; again.

I am a support of Israel in their modern conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah but this one-sided anti-British reading of history is as annoying as it is irrelevant to today's politics. If I based my modern politics of the events in the 1940's I'd be pro Arab because of the King David bombing and other anti British Jewish acts of terrorism.

Britain got an expensive hospital pass when it got the mandate for this area. Any course of action would have led to bloodshed and no course available pleased both sides. It may not have handled things perfectly agreed, but look at things from a British rather than Zionist perspective and consider the course you would have taken. Then consider the Arab backlash and where that may have taken things.

Truthtriumphs

David.
"I take it, then, you support a one state solution with as many Arabs who want to live there doing so?"

I take it, then, that for you the existence of one Jewish state with a 20% minority of Arabs, is just too much, notwithstanding that there are 22 judenrein Arab states and 57 Muslim states worldwide.
BTW, the tiny little Jewish state occupies just 1/6 of 1% of the Arab land mass.
What is it with people like you?

Jason from AZ

Churchill appeased the Arabs in the 1920's by giving away almost all the land of the Palestine mandate to the Arabs.

Chamberlain appeased Hitler a couple of decades later by agreeing to let Germany take over parts of Europe.

And now Blair, Brown et al. continue your appeasement proclivities by allowing unrestricted immigration from Muslim countries that hate the West, changing British policies to appease its Muslim immigrants, and even permitting Sharia creep.

And what will be Britains legacy for all this appeasement?: With a Muslim population having 10 times the birth rate of the rest of the country, it is only a matter of time before Great Britain becomes Islamic Britain. I guess you can call it Karma. Sorry to see you go.

Original Tony

Britain is paying for its betrayal of Israel. Just look at the state of Britain today, it's a second-world country with dwindling military or economic power. It's population is being dumbed down and soon London will have "istan" added onto it.

We have reaped what we have sowed. We have betrayed ally after ally, speaking with 'forked tongues' as the Red Indians say.

We have sown a whirlwind and are now reaping the consequences.

I hope Carl,Laird, Hazlitt, Blades and Si,N read what Melanie has so accurately written today and learn something from it.

But, no doubt they will stay in the dark like Wolf Blizter did in an interview with Netanyahu in 2007 when he said "history has nothing to do with the current circumstances in Palestine, this is not a history lesson."
(sic)

Jerry

Re Francois on British responsibility: The Jews controlled The Old City of Jerusalem in 1948 because they lived there. The British were instrumental in handing it to the Arabs.
/
"In this column last week I wrote about a member of the British counterterror unit, Roy Farran, who allegedly murdered a member of the pre-state Lehi underground militia, Alexander Rubowitz, in May 1947. It seems Farran did not concentrate exclusively on rightist terror organizations.Israeli attorney Mati Atzmon claimed this week that in late February 1948, Farran detained three Haganah members who were manning the Israeli position at Mandelbaum Gate next to Jerusalem's Old City. According to Atzmon, Farran handed over the Haganah members to an Arab mob that murdered them. The crew's commander, Shimon Nissani, was Atzmon's uncle."
/
Source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1074215.html

George Laird

Dear All

Previously I told Melanie Phillips her views were out of date and the world has passed her by.

Here is a poster called Ruairidh who is a supporter of Israel repeating my sentiment on part of her views;

"this one-sided anti-British reading of history is as annoying as it is irrelevant to today's politics".

Another day and right again.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Herbert Thornton

British governments have gone way beyond betraying the Jews and favouring Islamic peoples in the Middle East.

They are now - indeed as they have been doing for some time - betraying their own people and favouring Islamic immigrants in Britain itself.

leo solomon

Britain did not give the territoty now called jordan .It was seized by the Hashemite bedouin Abdullah -who had been defeated and exiled,along with his brother Feisal ,from the Arab penisula by Ibn Saud .Britain and Portugal were ,initially, the only countries to recognise and give legitimacy to the takeover.
Two peoples-the British and the bedouin Arabs,neither of whom had any connection, other than through conquest,to the land dictated its destiny to the terrible detriment of the jewish people whose connection to the land went back thousands of years.

disinterested

Heartbreaking and insoluble. A plague on all your houses?

Truthtriumphs

Disinterested.
Just as well that Churchill didn't share your point of view.
Had he done so, you would be living as a serf in the Third Reich today.
Such a facile comment!

Suffolkbor

Jason AZ:
I am afraid that your country is not that far behind .
Islamist Muslims have managed to get key posts in the White House and Obama wants yet more in his goverment .

There are mosques springing up all over America and the number of Muslims in the U.S. army has tripled since the early 1990,s so I would not get to smug about that if I were you sunshine,as you jump up and down like a flea on benzedrine with undisguised joy at the supposed demise of my country .

Very soon your Muslim Marxist president will start work on dismantling your constitution including removing your right to bear arms , which will be flushed down the u bend of history along with your right to free speech .

I will be sorry to see you go too.
As they say in France , ce la vie !

Gilbert Belwether

Well, I went to high school in Israel and I was never taught that the British promised to make all of the Mandate of Palestine into a Jewish national home. They committed to establishing one _in_ Palestine, as in fact happened. This is how the early Zionists understood things, too - witness the fact that few or none of them settled east of the Jordan. "The narrow territory between the Mediterranean and the River Jordan" contains the biblical homeland, which was all they ever wanted or expected; no one thought Amman or Petra would be given to the Jews.

David

"I take it, then, that for you the existence of one Jewish state with a 20% minority of Arabs, is just too much,"

Where did I say that? Please quote.

Gilbert Belwether

By the way, I too would like to hear for once, since Ms. Phillips so constantly and vehemently rejects the two-state solution and any other form or Israeli-Palestinian compromise, what solution (if any) she does espouse. In many months of following this blog I don't recall seeing a single constructive idea about resolving or even alleviating the conflict.

Nick

Suffolkbor it's 'C'est la vie', not 'ce la vie'

The rise of mosques in the US is because America is a democracy.
As what are these 'Islamist Muslims' in the US administation? A ludicrous assertion. Is Tim Geithner an Islamist? No. A person's ethnic background; to claim America is run by Muslims is as inaccurate/slurful as the anti-semitic 'the Jews run the world' diatribe.

By all means criticise what i see as anti-Israeli invective that is ignorant of history; or the notion that somehow Jews arrived only after 1948, evicting a Palestinian Arab Nation-State. But talking about the US President as 'Muslim Marxist' is meaningless. And so what if Obama were a Muslim? Is he is Unamerican as a consequence? He was elected fair and square, which is a lot more than can be said for his predecessor.

Suffolkbor

Jason AZ :
If you are not American and I have got that wrong just regard my posting as advice about possible emigration to the U.S.A..

Paul Freeman

Ruairidh:

"Kidnaps, bombings, assasinatons by the Irgun etc. that directly resulted in a hardening of British policy against Jewish immigration."

I think you'll find you've got this part of the story back to front.

On the other hand you are right to say that Jewish immigration led to violence -- by the Arab population. That is why Britain's policy hardened against the Jews.

paul st.pierre

Nothing alters the fact that Palestine wasn't British territory for Britain to give to anybody. Melanie should direct her attention to rearranging the Mongols' empire or perhaps the natural rights of the Neanderthals.

benjamin

What an enlightening article. I'm just imagining the scene in some village in Palestine on a Spring morning in 1920. Two farmers reading the paper outside their house overlooking their olive groves.
Mohammed "Hey Kamil, Great Britain has been given the responsibility by the League of Nations to oversee the Mandate over the geographical territory known as Palestine with the express intention of reconstituting within its territory a Jewish National Home"
Kamil "How interesting - what's the League of Nations?
M: "I've no idea"
K: "Well I think its a jolly good idea"
M: "Yes, lets tell the whole family to pack up everything - we'll leave this evening - we've only been living here for a few centuries"
K: "Spiffing idea - old boy - lets' put a "Welcome home" sign at the entrance to the village"
M: "What would we do without Great Britain to take care of things?"

Labhras

To Idigo 121 --you claim that 90% of Israelis would go back to 67 borders for real peace.

One question--when are you going to vote for a party that is committed to ending the "Illegal Settlement Expansion".

Of course you will have to find one first.

logdon

Another day and right again.Yours sincerely. George Laird.

I think it should have been Geo. Laird residing on the Smith sofa. Whatever activity Richard Timney was occupying himself with as he watched taxpayer funded porn surely applies to the vainest, most self serving and self deluded man on this blog?

stanley Jerusalem

Sorry paul st pierre but the Neanderthals were ethnically cleansed by Cro-Magnon Man about 35,ooo years ago and there aren't any left except in Glasgow University's Human Rights Group, Chez Silicon Nitride and Wee Carl and the Blade.Blaming Britain never got us anywhere until the new UN voted Israel into existence after November 1947.Somehow I think that all those Jewish terrorists in the 30's and 40' were reacting against something but some of our fellow bloggers have omitted to mention what.

Maurice, MD

The British Mandate for Palestine required it to establish there A Jewish National Home. Then after the Nazis came to power in Germany, and all through the Holocaust and after the Holocaust the British slammed and barred the gates to the Jews who so desperately needed that National Home.
And at the same time brought in Arabs from all over the Middle East who became the current "Palestinians."
By even the most cold-blooded of Real-Politik standards, just how did this turn out to be of benefit to Britain?

PS -- In the midst of the Holocaust Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden made a statement that nothing should be done to help Jews escape from Europe because nobody wanted them.

How did that turn out to benefit Britain?

The policy was not merely cruel and treacherous it was downright stupid.

Maurice, MD

Paul St. Pierre writes "Palestine was not British territory for Britain to give to anybody."
So whose territory was it then?
It had until 1918 been a province of the Ottoman Turkish Empire that had collapsed.
Who was the heir to the Ottomon provinces?
The inhabitants included Jews and Christians and Arabs and Berbers and various other peoples. Why would only the Arabs have exclusive right to it all? They got most of it indeed -- but by what line of reasoning were they entitled to 100% and nobody else entitled to anything?

Raymond Joseph Douglas

According to the Hal Lindsey report, Obama is about to withdraw support for Israel in order to appease Muslims. Even Rupert Murdoch can see the danger to the west in this most foolish of policies. see also, the magazine "Israel Today"

Suffolkbor

Nick:
The rise of mosques in the US is not because you are a Democracy it is because your goverment are stupid enough to allow substantial immigration of Muslims just like all of the other democracies in the world .

I never asserted that America was run by Islamists but merely that they have infiltrated key posts in your goverment just as they have in other western countries .

The difference between the slur about Jews running the world and the Islamists is that the former do not and the latter definitely plan to do so .

Thank you for correcting my misspelling . I do not usually use French quotes and could not be bothered to check whether it was correct.

Tim Geithner ?
Never heard of him !

Suffolkbor

A lot of the British soldiers who were killed in what was then Palestine during 1945/48 were national service conscripts who had no choice but to go where they were sent and who often did not have a clue what they were supposed to be doing there .

People , particularly soldiers , were not as well informed as folks are now about political conflicts and struggles .

Golda Meir was the only Jewish statesperson that I have ever heard express sympathy for British soldiers who were killed in the "Emergency " as it was termed .
"Poor boys , so far from home ,not really understanding what it was all about " .
A thoroughly decent woman I have always thought . One of Israel,s better leaders and hardly ever mentioned these days .

David

"Hal Lindsey: A news site dedicated to news analysis of current events from the perspective of Bible prophecy"

Hmm, clearly the place to go for reliable, reasoned political analysis.....

Wm. Hazlitt

Original Tony

You say you hope I read this stuff. Why?

solemnman

The Arabs wage a relentless series of wars always accompnied with the expressed desire of turning the Mediteranian Sea red with Jewish blood.If the Arabs had won any of the many wars they had instigated- Israel would have ceased to exist and its Jewish population would have been massacred -yet Israel ,after having won each of the many wars waged against it is ,in each case, required to return to square one.The Arabs are never expected to incur any loss but honour for their lust for blood and revenge. That seems unjust and disproportionate to me.

Indigo121

Labhras:
Parties committed to withdrawal to 67 borders: Labour, Kadima, Arab, Meretz, Yisrael beitenu LIKUD- Yes, Likud- but they will not state it.
Even without Likud that is about 70 of 120 seats

London Calling

As much as I enjoy History lessons, I am weary of the actual events that surround each action taken in history due to either the writers lack of full knowledge when writing or their own personal views interwoven , of which some comments here have highlighted, for example as Leo Solomon writes did Winston Churchill give away what is today called Jordan or was he forced to, it matters because it distorts History and most importantly the truth.

I am very disappointed that in the here and now weapons are still being smuggled into Gaza through underground tunnels and that the Israeli government are divided as to a way forward, But what disappoints me the most is that the recent Gaza conflict was a defining moment to draw world attention to the conflict and no one grasped it, instead the media cameras switched off, the dust settled from all the important visitors to Gaza and millions have been pledged to help rebuild
Hamas/Gaza.

The real tragedy though is that children in Israel and Gaza will be taught History without a hopeful vision of the future and it is they who deserve a new tomorrow, one of peace where they can play together without the hatred of the past cast over them like a black cloud and walls that imprison them.

Huw Thornton

I must admit that I'm rather puzzled by this article - I know that Melanie doesn't join in the discussions in the threads, but perhaps someone else could help me here.

Melanie mentions the dangers faced by Jews in the putative state of Palestine from the two state solution, and I agree that such a danger really exists. Leaving aside the question of historical responsibility for the current set up (of course, not a trivial matter!) what kind of solution would she propose?

Suppose that now, somehow, there could be a union between Israel, the Palestinian territories and Jordan, would this constitute an ideal solution?

And if the mind baulks at that, could a one-state solution involving Israel and the Palestinian territories be a desirable objective?

And if these two "solutions" are not acceptable, and a two-state is ruled out of court (as Melanie seems to suggest) would someone mind spelling out an alternative - with all its consequences?

I suppose that all this assumes that a "solution" can be found - and that it is desirable to do so. One alternative might be to keep things more or less as they are, with continual conflict, until there is nobody left to fire missiles or attack civilians in other ways. But can this really be what Melanie would propose?

hadrian

If a little learning is a dangerous thing, complete ignorance of a subject must be deadly. So can I suggest it is vital to Jewish interests that the general public can be recommended at least one or two books on the history of the Land, who occupied it, etc up to the end of 40s at least. It might dispell the misconception of a displaced populace, driven out by Semitic interlopers which is precisely how the Moslem world love to paint it.
So, Mel, what are the best treatments on the subject?

coldmember

"It is only if the true history of the Middle East is understood that certain things become inescapably clear."

Is the only true statement in Melanie's 'article', which i can only describe as a collection of lies, that even she does not believe; and it shows. I would even say laughable lies, except the amount of people who have lost, still losing and will lose their lives, in the service of insane Zionist expansionist ideologies, some how chokes my reaction to ridicule such tripe.

Here is a question the author may want to answer, that may help to dispel some of the suspicion towards Israel's history and its motives.

What is the meaning of the Israeli flag?

Of course there will be none, so here it is. The Israeli flag: 2 blues stripes and in the middle the star of David. The first blue stripe is the River Nile and the second is the River Euphrates. In between the two the Kingdom of David. 'From the Nile to the Euphrates', as far as Zionism is concerned, that is 'Greater Israel'. So lets swallow another bullshit pill, turn on X-factor and blame the victims, while Israel gets on with the job.

Terry

Melanie, I know you are right, G-d knows you are right. But I guarantee that most people couldn't care less, becaue arab and islamofascist propaganda, in conjunction with the western left, have hijacked debate on this matter.

It is no almost inconcevable for ordinary citizens who suck the teat of the bbc and guardian (etc) that Israel's existence is legally, morally, historically and religiously justified. The ractionis to ask, what about Palestine's equivalent rights? The fact that Palestine the state never existed and was invented in about 1964 just doesn't figure in the modern psyche. Much less that Israel was supposed to include what is now Jordan!!

This debate is no longer about objective and provable historical fact. That is the real problem. Many people simply swallow the line that Israel shouldn't exist.

That is the pernicious result of Israel losing the propaganda war. That is why Israel spends weeks refuting each allegation of wrongdoing, and yet the wrongdoing continues to represent the truth in many minds.

But ultimately, the emperor remains naked before the crowd. Israel and the Jews, our enemies face a force far greater than they can imagine. Which is why, even given my comments above, thank you for once more publishing the truth about Israel. If it is on the record, eventually it may be read and understood.

david

Maurice, MD

Thanks! Spot on!!

Merlyn

Islamic scripture actually recognizes the Jewish link to Israel, says the British imam Dr Al-Husseini. He says “You will find very clearly, that the traditional commentators from the eighth and ninth century onwards have uniformly interpreted the Koran to say explicitly that Eretz Yisrael has been given by God to the Jewish people as a perpetual covenant. There is no Islamic counterclaim to the Land anywhere in the traditional corpus of commentary.”
Read about this in
http://www.thejc.com/articles/what-koran-says-about-land-israel

David

"what about Palestine's equivalent rights"

Yes. You can't argue for one without the other. That's hypocritical, if not outright racist, much as arguing for Palestine without doing the same for Israel is.

David

"Israel was supposed to include what is now Jordan!!"

It wasn't. But if you are referring to Biblical sources, that's too bad, since they aren't legal documents. Many people believe they were made up, others that they were superseded. You can't point to them as proof of anything. Therefore, you work with what you can point to,which is the original UN partition.

gary

A correction to the history of Palestine and the Mandate.

Palestine when the Mandate was declared was only a western idea. There was no sovereign state known as Palestine, no borders, no government. The eastern border of "nominal Palestine" was about 20 miles east of the railway through Amman. When Trans Jordan was separated from the requirement to assist Jewish statehood it was about 50% of what was then known as Palestine. Over the next few years the British Arab forces fought with tribes in Saudi Arabia and Iraq to extend its eastern border. One part jutting into Iraq was to protect the oil pipeline from Basra to the port at Haifa.

So the creation of Jordan stripped about 50% of the land allocated for Jewish statehood, not 80%.

just Louise

Let's face it, owing to selective curricula and left-leaning teachers, large numbers of British young people today are ignorant of their own country's history, let alone Israel's. They have no clear chronological idea of any of it. They have been spoonfed lies and distortions about the British Empire, so that they bleat about how ashamed they are of it, forgetting that for all its faults it gave parliamentary democracy to the world (or tried to), and abolished excesses such as suttee and thuggee. By the same token, too many of them assume not merely that Palestine was completely devoid of Jews until the 20th century but that it was a sovereign country. Arnold Blumberg's book "Zion Before Zionism, 1838-1880", which came out in the 1980s, gives an idea of how comparatively empty Palestine was. But how to convey such facts to a generation that gets most of its facts from the internet and the TV (and Al Beeb at that, nor overlooking the mischievous CBBC) - that is the question. Unlike the Arabs and the Iranians, Jews and Israelis do not have a TV station beaming its message/narrative into western living rooms 24/7. It's high time some serious thought was given to filling this gap. I seem to remember the great Isi Leibler (one of the most perspicacious Jewish leaders in the world today) advocating a Jewish TV station many years ago; sadly, nothing came of his proposal from the people with the "necessary".

George

Coldmember - you have a vivid imagination. The blue stripes have no geographical meaning whatsoever. They represent the stripe on the prayer shawl - see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Israel#.22Nile_to_Euphrates.22_controversy

Original Tony

Hazlitt, so you can learn the truth, or is that too hard to bear?

Ruairidh

Paul Freeman: You claim I have the cause and effect the wrong way round. I don't believe I do. I believe the two actions feed off each other and that Jewish anti-British terrorism and British immigration controls formed a vicious cycle. Initial controls were probably as a result of Arab violence against new immigrants but thereafter Jewish terrorism which (albeit with a lull) continued through WWII would have been a major factor. However to say Jewish terrorism had no effect is the same as to claim that loyalist terrorism in NI had no impact because the republicans started it. Incidentally I agree that the Arabs were responsible for a large amount of the inter communal violence. Still from a public order perspective would you have allowed unrestricted immigration in that context? Could the consequences have been catastrophic? Don’t you think that opening up immigration after Jewish terrorism would have constituted direct appeasement?

Any treatment of Jewish immigration to the British mandate that ignores this background of violence and terrorism is not history, its propaganda. What’s more it is counterproductive because it alienates British supporters of Israel like me for no apparent gain

Yehuda

Huw Thornton: without being condescending, I'd like to applaud your clearsighted enunciation of the current problem: what is the solution? Is there one ? Maybe not.

Well, history DOES suggest a solution, since there are two precedents, namely, the acceptance by Egypt and Jordan of the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty and self-determination in The Land.
So, why did these two formerly venomously hostile( to Israel) states reach this point?

Could it have been because they reached the conclusions: 1. they could not defeat Israel militarily. 2. their incessant belligerency was stunting their own societies.
However, in the case of the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians, 1. "the world" has tied Israel's hands 2. their leadership, Arafat, Hamas, Abbas et alii were/ are not pragmatic. They still cling to the dream, partly because they know that the world is with them and also because more than they want their own state, they want to destroy the Jewish one. Can you imagine what the Palestinians' lives would be like today had they accepted the compromises of the 1936 Peel Partition Plan, or the 1947 UN General Assembly partition compromise or Israel's virtual capitulation in 2000 and also in the recent negotiations?
But no; to them, honour trumps peace; honour trumps a bright future for their children; honour trumps a decent life for their own people.
This has been the one constant

So the solution is for "the world" to let them know unequivocally that they will not be permitted to lay down ultimata and impossible conditions to Israel.
"The world", however, is pressuring Israel to give them a sovereign state BEFORE they abandon their dream.
It follows that if they do achieve this, they will continue the policy which the PLO formulated in 1974, namely, to use any foothold as a launching pad for continuing aggression.
Well, this is the road that would lead to disaster not only for the protagonists, but also for many other people.

Raymond in DC

Gilbert Belwether writes, "This is how the early Zionists understood things, too - witness that few or none of them settled east of the Jordan." In fact, Jews purchased a number of land tracts east of the Jordan and established early farming communities. (Biblical Israel did, after all, extend over the Jordan.) All of those lands were eventually seized by Jordan and all the Jews expelled. No compensation was ever provided.

phil

You can all relate history as you see it until you are blue in the face but the real enemy of mankind is the mindset of those like coldmember who are so blinded by hatred that the logical mind ceases to work -How anyone can see the Israeli flag as he does makes my brain spin .No solutions are possible with this type nor the likes of hazlitt, sin ,blades etc -why we even respond to them makes me wonder ,even though Adam B has always said they cannot just be allowed to spout their rubbish-nothing changes apart from us wasting our time with them ----------

I would much rather see our collective minds working on practical suggestions -Let those that wish to post hatred get on with it ,we do not need to demean ourselves by replying to them -I hope I have learned that lesson --------

.For most of us ,our minds have always been our most precious asset and we should concentrate on using that facility for the betterment of all. These threads are an amalgum of all religions and races and mostly a tribute to the best of each ,we need to remember that and try to move forward and ignore the cheap and nasty jibes ,they will move nothing .

David

"Biblical Israel did, after all, extend over the Jordan.) "

No, it didn't. This picture gives a good overview of what the land possibly consisted of, based on passages from the Torah. You'll see that Jordan was not included.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_Land_of_Israel.jpg

I should note that you wouldn't even need to be completely au fait with the minutiae of Torah passages as the notion of the Jews corssing the River Jordan into Canaan is quite well known. This alone would indicate that the biblical land did not consist of Jordan.

There is of course the Davidic empire, the boundaries of which are unclear, and have several interpretations, whcih are seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Davids-kingdom_with_captions_specifiying_vassal_kingdoms-derivative-work.jpg

This is of course an empire, and no more indicates that Jordan was part of Israel than the mandate indicates it should be part of the UK.

Finally, I would again note that using bibilical sources as evidence of land rights is utterly pointless, given that the texts are religious in nature and thus not independently verifiable, being, as they are articles of faith.

Valentinus

Barely a shred of this stands up to historical scrutiny. Melanie––spend a day in the BL. Go on. Read the painstaking, non partisan scholars who have researched the archive of this monumental tragedy in depth (including several distinguished Jewish and Israeli historians). Not the half-baked journalistic agitators. Ask yourself just once what it just might have felt like to be a Palestinian having his house and garden confiscated....

Support for a strong, modern, progressive Israel is, as so often with your recent prose, seriously damaged by this splenetic hyperbole, which actually insults rather than cherishes the victims of the Final Solution.

Incidentally––if there is to be no Palestinian state, what is your recipe for peace? Deportation of Palestinians to Jordan? Greater Israel? Equal democratic citizenship for all who live in Israel's borders (however defined)? Tell us.

Original Tony

Phil 10:52...well said...I am doing my bit in a practical way by buying all the Jewish produce I can, whenever I have need of it.

I think another practical solution would be to take all the money the world is offering Gaza and pay each resident of Gaza and the West bank, a million dollars each and tell them to move to Jordan and Syria. In this way they will have fair compensation, all will be millionaires and the host countries will have billions injected into their economy. Everyone would be a winner.

Original Tony

David 9:53pm...you will come to see the folly of your statement in due course. I hope you don't become a victim of your own disbelief because the consequences are too horrific to consider.

David

"Everyone would be a winner."

Do you think everyone in Israel would move out if they were offered £1 million each? There are some things in life more important than money. Jews are well aware of that, and of the importance of a homeland.

David

"you will come to see the folly of your statement in due course"

Mmm.....no. Proper political analysis can't be obtained froma site proclaiming it does so from the perspective of "Biblical prophecy".

Michael B

David,
You need to forward what you intent - in a positive sense - by "proper political analysis" in the first place. To this point you've forwarded glib rebuffs, and nothing more. Hold yourself, bare minimum, to your own standards, and forward your own, positively conceived analysis. That is, after all, the challenge.

Miranda Rose Smith

Dear Ruairidh: The Irgun and the Stern Gang were a REACTION to British policy in Mandatory Palestine, not a CAUSE. The Haganah co-operated with the British in trying to put down the Irgun, even kidnapping Irgun members and handing them over to the British.

George

David @11:16, two comments:

1) I am familiar with the minutiae of the Bible. 2.5 of the 12 tribes settled to the East of the Jordan river.

2) I would happily settle for the boundaries of the modern state of Israel to be those shown in the picture you referred to. I could very happily live without Eilat

Trumpeldor

David,
"Mmm.....no. Proper political analysis can't be obtained froma site proclaiming it does so from the perspective of "Biblical prophecy"

You know ,David,some years ago ,I had the same kind of thinking .
However,after multiple stays in Israel,talking to all people and walking eveywhere (following Orde Wingates),I have changed my mind.
Real miracles occurred ,happen today and will come tomorrow !
Such a tiny state,being able to prosper against all odds proves either that common goals can overcome any hurdles AND/OR GOD's presence is indeed there !
I think that "normal" nations are deeply scared because they feel that "something", very ancient and strong has restarted to project his power on this ancient land
Only future maybe will tell me I am right or if I do need prozac.

phil

Original Tony -an interesting concept ,but tongue in cheek?-my solutions are very simple -let the leaders of the Arabs decide to work together with Israel in good faith along with a Palestinian leadership that actually cares for the future of its children ,rather than their own horrible aims .They would reap an immense benefit in technology ,health ,education ,prosperity and once again live in harmony with their Jewish neighbours as they have done before ---I think you will be as sad as me that so far you are the only one to have commented on the subject matter of my earlier post -just more tit for tat and twisted versions of the truth that gets us nowhere .

-It needs that effort of will like Sadat made to put their citizens before themselves -I am old enough to remember the huge emotional feeling of happiness and gratitude when he stepped off that plane -We also saw how low the Arab world could stoop when they killed him-Egypt and Jordan are still at peace through the efforts of visionaries like him and the late King Hussein -----------

.Israel too needs a leader with similar vision ,one who has not been reduced by the siege mentality ,and finally we need the people of this world to encourage a peace process rather than the hatemongers who come here to detract from ever seeing the two peoples coming together .They are a major cause of the feelings of mistrust and paranoia,perhaps those like sin and george can be treated as the jokes that they are but others come here and write such twisted versions of that truth, but in a "learned" manner that deceives all but those that have taken the trouble to find the truth as it is ,not what they want it to be .The damage caused by hazlitt and sidgewick and friends ensure that hatred will persist -I so wish they cared enough to be a catalyst for peace rather than war and that seeing their name in "lights "was not their most important aim .

Original Tony

Phil..1:49 pm. I agree wholeheartedly

David

"I am familiar with the minutiae of the Bible. 2.5 of the 12 tribes settled to the East of the Jordan river."

Then you would know that they were not considered to be within Israel, then.

"I would happily settle for the boundaries of the modern state of Israel to be those shown in the picture you referred to. I could very happily live without Eilat"

Then you could also very happily live within the 1967 borders. Having access via Eilat is extremely useful commercially and strategically.

"The Irgun and the Stern Gang were a REACTION to British policy in Mandatory Palestine, "

Interesting. Melanie tends to discount any similar statements put forard for Islamic terrorist groups, and notes that there is no excuse.

"To this point you've forwarded glib rebuffs, and nothing more"

On the contrary, I've pointed to more accurate representation of what the bible says regarding the borders of Israel, and noted that much of what has been said wregarding the Palestinains would rightly not be applied to Jewish people. Pointing out this double standard is extremely useful, and far more than just glib.

coldmember

@George 9:28
You source is Wikipedia! reading the, frantic swarm of garbage, that makes up most of the postings on this article, one cant help but admire the creativity invested into the convoluted lies that are used to justify israel's zionist land grab. Mind you, v few are fooled by this stuff now adays...keep digging

Linda Smith

Valentinus posted "Ask yourself just once what it just might have felt like to be a Palestinian having his house and garden confiscated."

"The blame game
The Palestinian refugees are victims, yes - but not of Israel. Rather, they are the victims of wars launched - ostensibly for them - by the Arab states, but for which they pay the price. They are the victims, effectively, of Arab aggression against Israel.

"Had the Palestinians accepted the UN [partition] resolution instead of waging an aggressive war, there would have been no refugees.... The initial refugee problem of 1948 was exacerbated when Egypt and Syria launched the Six Day War.... Never before in history have those who lost wars of aggression been deemed equal partners in the negotiation, and for good reason," writes legal expert Prof. Alan Dershowitz of Harvard University. The "good reason," of course, is that aggressors should not have incentives for perpetrating acts of aggression."

http://info.jpost.com/C003/Supplements/Refugees/4.html

Valentinus: Hamas, driven by religious hatred of Jews, say they will never recognise the Jewish State of Israel and are commited to extermination of worldwide Jewry . The Jews have more to lose than a house and garden. What is your recipe for peace? Jewish National Suicide???

George

David @2:40 "Then you could also very happily live within the 1967 borders." Don't be so arrogant as to put words in my mouth. If I had meant that, I would have said it.

Ruairidh

Dear Miranda Rose Smith, are you seriously claiming that anti British Jewish terrorism did not influence British policy in the region? Do you think they just shrugged of the deaths of our soldiers in targetted bomb attacks and kidnappings? Of course when they first decided to murder and bomb the Irgun were reacting to something but don't you think that their subsequent actions had consequences and these consequences included a hardening of the British attitude towards Jewish immigration? (Was your response to 7/7 and 21/7 a call for more Muslim immigration to Britain or less?) Do you seriously lack the imagination to see how this would have been seen from London? Don't you wonder why the Haganah acted against the Irgun? Perhaps they had the imagination you lack in seeing that Jewish terrorism would turn the British against them and be counter productive in the long term.

stanley Jerusalem

I suppose that it has occurred to more than one of us posting here that the G20 governments which include all our Western democracies are relying on the Oil-rich countries of the Middle east to bail them out of the dire straits they find themselves in and as a consequence they are likely to be more sympathetic to arab causes and agendas and less to Israel's. The built-in bias against Israel in the UN will prop up the expressions of outrage were anyone to complain of such uneven treatment and Israel is likely to be marginalised.This will not give Hamas and Hezbullah licence to commit furthe atrocities but in all probability will ameliorate world reaction against them while the everlasting anti-semitism of of the west will support this in addition to the Muslim vote.
Cheerful thought.

stanley Jerusalem

After all, Britain's reneging on the Balfour Declaration so relatively short a time after it was made, and before the Nazi menace raised its ugly head, was merely to ingratiate itself with the perceived oilfield owners in the Middle East. The natural innate anti-semitism of Britain's ruling classes simply nunderwrote this agenda. Even after the horrors of the Holocaust were revealed, they continued their hateful attitude, both high and low and the lowest was ex-lorry driver and union activist supreme the late and totally unlamented Ernie Bevin who took the proud decision to return Jewish refugees to the camps from which they had been liberated when they had almost reached their 'Promised Land.'The momentum was pepetuated by such racists as Anthony eden and Alec Douglas-Home whose foreign polices ensured that at vital moments Israel was denied armaments and spare parts in what was cynically described as an 'Even-handed policy' notwithstanding the countless tonnes of materiel supplied by the Eastern Bloc to the Arabs.As I said; cheerful thought.

Ganpat Ram

I am truly aghast that Melanie Phillips doesn't realise that Winston Churchill's betrayal of the Jews went far beyond merely handing Jordan to the Arabs.

Churchill deprived the Jews of far, far more valuable territory than mere Jordan.

It was none other than Churchill's heinous hand that created the state of Iraq, thus handing a territiry endowed with fabulous oil wealth to the Arabs.

Iraq belongs to the Jews.

The Israelis have perfect biblical justification for claiming Iraq.

The Bible tells us that Abraham came from Ur of the Chaldees.

This is a great and justified cause for Israeli bitterness - the handing of Iraq to Arabs with truly breathtaking, anti-biblical perfidy, by Winston Churchill.

stanley Jerusalem

Peter Ustinov was once asked why he never became a commissioned officer during WWII. His reply was " I heard a couple of crusty old WWI officer types discussing in my club a potential battle before September 1939 and one commented 'if it's going to cost more than 40,000 lives, it's not worth it.' I could never put myself in a position where I might have to make such a decision."Despite the Jews of Palestine fighting with and for the Allies during the war, some arrogant and stupid Foreign Office Type made the decision to disregard the warning sent 24 hours before the King David Hotel was blown up with the consequent tragic loss of life.
It is not known whether he survived or was even in the building at the time but he was clearly one of the 'if it costs more than 40,000 casualties' types.It in the consideration of the contemporary circumstances of Britain's failin role as a World Leader that the behaviour of Jewish terrorists must also be considered. However the greatest source of aggravation and impoverishment of the Palestinians in gaza and to a lwesser extent in the West bank is actually the surrounding Arab nations who put them there and then left them there.

Leslie

Truth:
“At the behest of our leader Herzl, I came to Basle to make preparations for the Zionist Congress. Among many other problems that occupied me then was one which contained something of the essence of the Jewish problem. What flag would we hang in the Congress Hall? Then an idea struck me. We have a flag — and it is blue and white. The talith (prayer shawl) with which we wrap ourselves when we pray: that is our symbol. Let us take this Talith from its bag and unroll it before the eyes of Israel and the eyes of all nations. So I ordered a blue and white flag with the Shield of David painted upon it. That is how the national flag, that flew over Congress Hall, came into being.”

— David Wolffsohn

Do you know what truth is,Coldmember?

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels

stanley Jerusalem

Notwithstanding claims to the contrary the Tractate of Sanhedrin in the Babylonian Talmud which was written between 135 and 420 of the Common Era deals with the status of land ownership. There is a clear and unwavering principle in Jewish Law which is the " There is no despair in the ownwership of land to which an individual has claim of ownership."
Now I know all you Dawkins Lovers out there will raise your hands in horror and say " There is no God. There is no Religion. It's all hocus-pocus." However you will have to concede that all of our laws are based on the Jewish model if not actual copies of it and we do seem to have a prior claim to this territory. Even the Godless have discussed the nature and extent of the two and a half tribes who occupied land East of the River Jordan after the Exodus from Egypt, some reserving the right to disregard it. Whether this was on the basis of arbitrary cancellation of the claim owing to some statute of limitations or because they 'felt' it might not be fair to the party they find themselves supporting. Even the Holy Q'ran mentions the ownership of the land of the Bible by the Jews, irrespective of what the Prophet thought of them. Jesus certainly would have thought that he lived at home in a land of his fathers.However in 2009 it's just not convenient to accept that the Jews have the longest and strongest claim and that the disturbing idea of even questioning the right of Israel to exist is what allows these people to drive their agenda roughshod across the human rights of a people and race which has surprisingly survived for nearly four millenia. We must be doing something right, my friends.

stanley Jerusalem

Ganpat Ram
March 31st, 2009 5:50pm
I'm not sure whether it's a nice thought or not but Abraham [ or Abram as he was then] left Ur in Chaldea to journey on a mission from God to the Land of Israel. No Jew has subsequently thought it possible to claim back rent for Terach's house in Ur.
We 'burned our boats' when Abram went West, young man.

Ganpat Ram

When even someone as perceptive as Melanie Phillips shows not a glimmer of undestanding how all our modern troubles in the Middle East sparing from the unforgivable betrayal by Churchill of the Jews over Iraq, I truly despair.

Whar chance then has truth and common sense?

If Churchill had shown a fraction of the fair-play and vision with which so many foolish people credit him, he would never have done something so unjust (and, as I will show, suicidal) as to hand over the patrimony of the Jews, the lands of the Euphrates and Tigris, the lands of Abraham the Chaldee ! - to some interloping Arabs.

It was an act beggaring every dictionary in the world of its resources in words to designate the blackest injustice, folly, shame, wickedness.

Consider how it all might have been had Churchill done the obviously decent thing and given the Jews Iraq, in addition to the Jordan that the League of Nations and Britain's great Lord Balfour had already awarded them, as Melanie Phillips points out......

The Jews then, would have possessed broad and legitimate territories endowed with great oil wealth.

If Sinai, where their ancestor Moses had spoken to none other than God Almighty, had likewise in justice been given back to the Jews, we would have been witness to a singularly gratifying and noble situation: an incomparably bigger and more powerful Israel than today's, with space for many millions more Jews, siting firmly astride the Arabian (so-called) penninsula, from the Persian (so-called) Gulf to the Suez Canal.....!!!!

How radically different the scene would have been, and how much more advantageus, alas, for none other than Churchill's own Britain !

No 1956 Suez defeat....because with Israel firmly able to control the Canal, Nasser would not have been able to seize it.

Indeed, with Israel readily able to intervene beneficially in Egyptian affairs, there would never have been any loudmouth nationalist malfactor like Nasser for the West to contend with.

The West and the Middle East, as well as Israel, would have enjoyed peace and prosperity undisturbed by the destructive eruptions of Arab political trouble making a la Nasser, Arafat, Saddam, etc etc.

Of all these noble prospects Churchill deprived the world and, ironically, his very own Britain, which would have gained the most.....

What crushing historical irony !

How mind-numbingly obvious it all is !

Why must I be the only one to understand?

stanley Jerusalem

Ganpat Ram
March 31st, 2009 5:50pm
Regardless of history you are beginning to convince me. We should start a movement for Iraq for the Jews. After all, we have so many world problems, another one will hardly seem insuperable and we can rely on our new Israeli government here to commit themselves to further acts of masterly inactivity on yet another propaganda front. Who knows? Some twit might even believe it. After all, we have the ancient Bards of Ireland claiming that Tara, their seat of power derived its name from Torah ; brought by a fleeing Jeremiah from Nebuchadnezzar. And then there's always that old faithful Union Jack which is patently short for Union of Jacob. need I say more?
Basra for the Borscht Drinkers!
Babylon Rules OK?!

Trumpeldor

@ Ganpat Ram

I always loved alternative history
Some SF authors reached fame with that concept.
I always thought that UK and USA altogether didn't act more forcefully against nazis holocaust plan because they dreaded the existence of a powerful Jewish state whose population now would have reached 15 millions.
Who would have challenged such a powerful country????

gary

Ganpat Ram

It's Moses' fault. After Sinai he should have taken the eastern path.

Huw Thornton

@ Yehuda

Many thanks for your response, which I thought was really interesting.

I would agree with you that a two-state "solution" with elements in one state trying to destroy the other would be no solution at all.

And to be fair to Melanie, she's not under any kind of duty to find some facile solution.

It's possible, but depressing, to think that there may be no "solution" which makes easy sense.

Labhras

Ingigo 121 you did not answer my question.

I asked when you are going to vote for a party committed to ending the illegal Settlement Expansion.

Tell me, with the exception of the Arab Party--your statement re kadoima/labour et al is beyond belief.Well at least here in the real world.

stanley Jerusalem

gary
March 31st, 2009 8:24pm

"Ganpat Ram - It's Moses' fault. After Sinai he should have taken the eastern path."

How odd
Of God
To choose
The Jews.
The Goyim
Annoy Him.
But still
More odd
Are those
That choose
A Jewish God
But scorn
The Jews.

Ganpat Ram

STANLEY JERUSALEM:

I deliberately set a trap to test insight in my last message, and I fear you have fallen right into it.

It is true I dwelt mainly on Iraq as the place that, unbelievable as it seems, virtually no Jew today has the sense to understand is the Jews' patrimony by the most unassailable, biblical, Abrahamic, right.

But I did, to entice the perceptive reader's imagination further, mention Sinai as another territory unquestionably Jewish by the awesome crushing right of Moses having received the Tablet of the Law from God almighty there, though it is cruelly usurped by Eygyt.

But the capital question is: Where did Moses go from Sinai?

To assume he wandered there for forty years, as is conventionally done, should invite scorn from the meanest intellect.

How could the restless tribes of Israel have spent four decades wandering in such a tiny area? Most unlikely !

In any case, they are known to have entered Israel from the East, across the Jordan, not from the South, from Sinai.

Most significantly, this "wandering in the wilderness" described by the Bible is in unnamed lands. These could, however, have hardly been Jordan; it too is too small. Nor could they have been Syria or Chaldea in modern-day Arab-usurped "Iraq" so-called (by virtue of Churchill's perfidy).

No, those areas were well known to the Bible writers, and had Moses done his wandering in them, they would have mentioned the names of the lands.

Everything, then, points unerringly to a very large wilderness area - enough for decades' wandering - with little or no population, to the East of Israel, so wild there was no particular name by which they were known to the Bible writers.....

Can anyone with an atom of intelligence still not realize what that waste land must have been?

Why, the endless deserts of modern-day Saudi Arabia !

But let us also realize that no people wanders incessantly for forty years. It is certain that the Jews must have established settlements in what became Saudi Arabia. Indeed, in Mohammed's day there were Jewish tribes around Mecca and Medina (which he massacred).

What does all this lead us to?

A very simple, mathematically certain conclusion: historically, Saudi Arabia, with all its endless dollops of oil, belongs to the Jews.

It is a melancholy feat of historical injustice and, to tell truth, their own lack of understanding, that has deprived Israel of these opulent lands.

There some Arabs there today. Let us by all means admit that. Without Biblical right, not a shred of it, but, boringly, unimpressivly, rather exasperatingly, THERE.

Let us therefore find a just solution.

The Israelis cannot expect tp get bsck Saudi Arabia, however unjust that is. But they can claim royalties on the immense oil revnues in lands settled by their ancestors. Let them be moderate, and claim no more than 70 per cent.

Will the Obama administration take up this fight? Let us see.

If they fail to do so after a reasonable interval we may assume they are indeed in the handa of an Arabo-Marxist cabal.

Yet who can blame Obama? We live in decadent times. When I have explained these matters to Jews themselves, they have shown a chilling, puzzling, lack of indignation.

Suffolkbor

I think that it is a shame that the promised land for the Jews could not have been New Zealand .
The geographical isolation of that beautiful and lush, largest island in the world would have been a great advantage .

The distance between the Jew hating gene pool of Europe , if one uses London as a starting point and Wellington as destination is 11,680 miles .

It would be rather difficult to lob rockets at the populace which would be a plus, although the Maoris might have a dispute with their new found citizens .

Still , I believe that the Maoris took exception when Captain Cook landed and a fat lot of good that did them at the time .

John Edwards

Lloyd George expressed the dilemma the British faced in the House of Commons:

"The obligations of the Mandate were specific and definite. They were that we were to encourage the establishment of national home for the Jews in Palestine without detriment to the rights of the Arab population. This was a dual undertaking and we must see that both parts of the Mandate are enforced."

Of course, the second part of the obligation is the one most people forget.

I don't think the article by Victor Sharpe which Melanie links to is particularly worth reading. I note that the link to his book on the Israel\Palestine conflict leads to a self publishing website, which speaks for itself as regards his scholarly credentials.

However, the claim that the British allowed "massive illegal Arab immigration into the territory from neighbouring Arab states" is completely untrue.

In fact offical reports at the time of the Mandate show that the amount of Arab immigration into Palestine was negligable or in the words of one survey "casual, temporary and seasonal".

Of course some people try to claim that there was "massive Arab immigration" in order to pretend that the Palestinian refugees were not actually indigenous to the region. This "land without a people" myth is still surprisingly prevalent. There was a particularly stupid book published some years ago by Joan Peters called "From time immemorial" which attampted to falsify the population statistics in support of the land without a people myth.

Peter's book was the subject of a magnificent evisceration by Norman Finkelstein and published most recently as chapter 2 of "Image and reality of the Israel-Palestine conflict" and very much worth reading!

Charles

John Edwards,
Quite so. I tried to make some similar points about Mr Sharpe in a post yesterday morning but the moderator thought my wording overly blunt, it would seem. Similarly, there are a multitude of lies promulgated about immigration numbers during the Mandate. The British Government reports are likely to be the most authoritative source (see example here - http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Books/Story835.html) and they confirm your point precisely. Also there is the issue of Jewish emigration, which was very considerable at times and tends to be skirted around by the pundits.

Yehuda

John Edwards has been extremely selective in his narrow reading about the demographic history of The Land of Israel, hence his unjustifiably contemptuous tone towards those who disagree with him.
Well, John, you can still redeem yourself by studying the following:
1. Fred M. Gottheil, Arab Immigration into Pre-State Israel, 1922-1931.
2. Palestine Royal Commission Report, 1937.
3. Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad, 1867.
4. A.Granott, The Land System in Palestine, 1952.
5. Sir John Hope Simpson,[ fierce anti-Zionist] Palestine, Report on Immigration, Land Settlement and Development, 1930.

After doing this preliminary research, John, you'll probably want to apologise, especially for citing the joke called Norman Finkelstein.

Donna Gardier

To: Ruairidh 31/3 4.56pm

Anti British Terrorism - What terrorism? Can it be called ‘terrorism’? You might be outraged, who wouldn’t by some of the activities of the Irgun however it doesn’t quite fit with the currently defined scope of what is terrorism. The example of Islamic Terrorism, being the most prolific, is a contrast.

The bombing of The King David Hotel has been mentioned for instance. It was blown up because it contained all the intelligence information about Israelis, probably a lot of which was gathered during the British military ‘Operation Agatha’. The hotel happened to be the headquarters of the British Army. The target was to destroy the intelligence records and gathering apparatus. Therefore was it not a legitimate military target?

They were warned that the hotel would be blown up and that they should evacuate. They ignored the warnings.

Many staff were rounded-up and held in the ballroom so they couldn’t raise the alarm before the bombs could be planted on the columns holding up the hotel.

Prior to setting off the bomb they released all the staff to escape.

It’s not quite your classical and standard terrorist operation. Had they taken the warning and evacuated then no-one would have been killed.
Did the IRA warn the Brighton Hotel they blew up?

Do Hamas issue warnings?
It cannot be denied the loss of life is a tragedy that wouldn’t have occurred if there had been no blowing-up. But I don’t see how the bombing of the King David Hotel is classed as terrorism. In fact many British soldiers have been awarded The Victoria Cross for carrying out this this kind of war time operation.

It is also interesting to note that the only instances when “Haganah” (later absorbed as IDF) personnel came into adverse contact with British service personnel was when the British helped Arab invaders in various capacities. A prime example being the year-long siege and artillery bombardment of Western (i.e. Jewish) Jerusalem by the Arab Legion which was led by British officers at battalion and higher level. Remember the British broke the Mandate by refusing to allow fleeing Jews from Nazi Europe to find safe haven in Israel. The British sided with the Arabs. The Jews and the “Haganah” (later to become absorbed into the IDF) were fighting to save the Jewish race from a second extermination.

Also note when, immediately after the establishment of Israel, the Irgun refused to dissolve itself into a national army and tried to do what Hamas did in Gaza, the IDF took them on with guns loaded, arrested the perpetrators s and established the rule of law. Perhaps if the Palestinian Army had behaved similarly, the situation in the Middle East would have been simpler.

Donna Gardier

The very successful ethno-cultural heritage of the Jews has seen them through thick and thin to say the least. There are too many Jews in my opinion on this site who fall into the trap of believing they are hated when in fact they are envied. They are a people who nurture intelligence, a cohesive identity, solid moral code and clear boundaries within which their people can find the space and privacy to safely explore the human condition and eventually find a balance. Their tenacity, self belief, sacrifice, enterprise and innovation all revolve around a fulfilling self sustaining rewarding well nurtured continuity of their shared history and heritage of core family values.

The rest of the world is busy ignoring that there are a large number of desperate undeveloped cultures, lost in the dark ages, who have not managed to find enough self belief and self respect to live peacefully within their own cultures without believing they have to dominate the world. They carefully ignore that many cultures are happy with their extreme beliefs and are not going to be ‘saved’ by the expedient pity of arrogant smug morally superior left wing crusaders too many of whom are caught up in ego trips towards being self-styled legends in their own lunchtimes.

The growing bandwagon that is being perpetuated on behalf of one-after-another oppressed race or region is like displacement behaviour gone mad. It has produced a dangerous imbalance of ‘reliance’ and disruptive destructive alliances, revolving around a growing worldwide multi-million dollar racket trading on ‘Victimhood’. The West’s diluted weak cultural values purporting to be a pathway to becoming all things to all people are being manipulated by growing numbers of organisations getting their piece of the full juicy PR I’m gonna save the world pie. There are now too many people with vested interests and dubious agendas to look objectively at the ingredients in this pie. Therefore they are all too distracted and cowed and cannot now step back and make the ingredients healthy or stop the current ingredients contaminating too much of what is good about the human race.

Because of this imbalance, the Jews have to remain strong as their own gatekeepers. The multicultural idealism of those with misguided tunnel vision combined with the agenda of cunning opportunists rears up at any opportunity and discredits the pragmatism of the Jews and their measures of self-preservation. Victimhood Inc popularises the idea that it is negative for a part to be played by the unpopular gatekeeping forces in any society. Those who selflessly take on the unpopular jobs in modern world politics and make unpopular real decisions about what keeps their people and homeland from being overrun and their people intact are being marginalised by a bloated media feeding off a lot of nonsense which in turn feeds an increasingly sponge-like audience conveniently bereft of decent sources of education and information.

The Jacqui Smith debacle is a by product of this weakness in British government. She was asked to take on a chief gatekeeping role by Gordon Brown only after his failed desperate attempt to persuade many others to take it on! The reticence of anybody wanting to take on the role speaks volumes about the type of character drawn into labour politics. If ever there was a glaring sorry example of the left wing reticence to do the unpopular authorative part of the job they take office for this is it. Instead they are too concerned with desperately feeding the unhealthy sound-bite spectacle that political news reporting has become. There is a necessity for them to encourage and perpetuate global victimhood expediently with the help of MSM. MSM comply with soppy freeze framed airbrushed photos, accompanied by carefully chosen modern music, crafting news into soap opera. They provide instant global PR campaigns for self indulgent politicians in egotistical pursuit of high profile publicity who obfuscate the need for proper focus on difficult domestic decisions because they need this massive and growing worldwide displacement bandwagon.

The weaker the West becomes as it continues to try to be all things to all people the more pressure is put on Israel and the Jews. The Jews buck the trend. They are steadfast and they are clear about what they need to do. The machinations of the diplomatic showmen of the rest of world politics look self serving and their showmanship and ineffective faux magnanimity is shown up for the futile circus it has become. The Jews are a success story. No matter where they have been hounded from or hounded to they are intact as a people. They have contributed to the world wherever they have settled. They have been ‘allowed’ to return to Israel and the world and his wife is begrudging them because they are showing us all up by holding on to a little piece of land THE SIZE OF WALES where their children can truly develop the sense of belonging they deserve. If not for anything else their detractors should look more often at how they have contributed to the world at large in a massive and beneficial way wherever they’ve been banished to at different times in history.

stanley Jerusalem

Ganpat Ram
March 31st, 2009 10:48pm
"But the capital question is: Where did Moses go from Sinai?

To assume he wandered there for forty years, as is conventionally done, should invite scorn from the meanest intellect."

I would have thought that it might have invited scorn from anything other than the meanest uninformed intellect.
We say in our commentaries to the Scriptures that the Children of Israel were so institutionalised by having lived as slaves in Egypt that it was deemed necessary to allow the entire generation, including Moses, to die out in the Wilderness of Sinai. Even the reports of the Twelve Spies, early on in their sojourn there, demonstrated such a level of negativity as to confirm the decision to raise a new brood for the conquest of The Promised Land. Thus, wherever they wandered was never considered as acquired territory, unlike the Captain Cooks and the Conquistadores of more recent times.It was said that "It took 40 hours to get the Jews out of Egypt and 40 years to get Egypt out of the Jews". For this reason and this reason alone the relatively short journey from Port Suez to Jericho was dragged out for 40 years.
No Jew has ever or would ever lay claim to any terrirtory other than that defined by and described by the Five Books of Moses, otherwise known as the Torah.Perhaps one might keep this particular trap shut to avoid giving the wrong impression.

stanley Jerusalem

Brilliant posting Donna Gardier!

Ruairidh

Ah I see Donna, because some of the tactics adopted by Irgun were quasi-military that makes their terrorism ok. I suppose political assassinations or the kidnapping and hanging of British soldiers are also fine and acceptable in your book. I suppose your claim of a warning being given for the King David hotel also makes the RIRA Omagh bombing acceptable because a warning was given then too.

Why are you trying to justify terrorism? If you can use this type of logic to justify Jewish terrorism it is a slippery slope. Hamas and Hezbollah kidnappings of Israeli soldiers immediately become acceptable tactics for example. Are they?

Do you look at the actions of the Irgun as noble resistance fighters? Do you think their actions helped their cause? Do you think they bear any responsibility for anti-Jewish sentiments at the time?

I know the actions of the British throughout the empire were often terrible, especially by modern standards. The suppression of revolt and dissent was frequently harsh and disproportionate. Accepting this doesn’t mean I’m denying my Britishness. The Irgun were terrorists and used the tactics of terror. Acknowledging this does not need to undermine your support for Israel, Zionism or anything else. Expunging it from history or whitewashing it from blame does modern day Israel and Zionism a severe disservice because it implicity accepts terrorism as an acceptable tactic of the downtrodden.

Rationalise Irgun and you rationalise Hamas.

just Louise

Suffolkbor, during the 19th century a member of the illustrious Anglo-Jewish Montefiore family did canvass the possibility of the British government making part of New Zealand (the whole North Island, I think) a homeland for the Jews!
During the 20th century the possibilty of a Jewish autonomous state in Australia was canvassed three times - twice in a remote region of the north-west known as The Kimberleys, and once in Tasmania! The most serious of these was made by The Freeland League for Jewish Colonisation during the 1930s, and many Australian opinion-makers supported it, but the Australian Federal Government was opposed to all notions of "group settlement".

Ganpat Ram

Stanley Jerusalem:

Do you think monotheism, the great Jewish contribution to suffering mankind, was worth the bitter intolerance it bred?

Maybe we would all have been better off if we had stuck by the old, easy-going, polytheistic philosophy of the Greeks?

Maybe Athens is a better guide to mankind than Jerusalem?

Your thoughts?

stanley Jerusalem

Ganpat Ram - Tell me this isn't a trap like " have you left off beating your wife?"
Many Jews embraced facets of Hellenism when it was fashionable 2500 years ago and an entire generation of Jewish boys were named Alexander in tribute to his beneficence to the Jewish People but as they say in the Good Book [ours] 'This too shall pass' and it did. They worshipped beauty and threw babies over cliffs to appease their deities.
Any more questions?

Ganpat Ram

DONNA GARDIER:

Many thnaks for that brilliant parody of the unthinking boastful type of pro-Israeli.

I happen to belong to the thinking type which respects Israel and the Jews, but not uncritically.

It is always good to have smug attitudes mocked as you have done in your parody.

just Louise

Donna, you've nailed it with your brilliant, insightful post, which is deserving of wide attention and a wide audience.
Stanley, you have wit and wisdom in equal amounts; I thoroughly enjoy your droll and devastating comments. Keep 'em coming!

Hoob's Nature

Superb posting Donna Gardier!

Donna Gardier

To Ruairidh: I posted a response but I'm afraid it didn't get through. Thanks for your comments anyway.

Thanks stanley and I'll take this opportunity to reciprocate with thanks for all your posts.

Ganpat: I don't set out to mock.

Ganpat Ram

DONNA GARDIER:

You may not have set out to mock, Donna, but you have succeeded in doing so very well.

One can use your piece as a perfect specimen of the smug type of thoughtless, boasting pro-Israeli talk - the exact opposite of the kind of critical support someone like me would give to Israel.

The contempt for most of mankind's cultures your parody exudes is really quite delightful. It is laugable to think there are Westerners and Israelis who think so little of everyone else. Silly egoism makes for laughter.

The Hindus invented the decimal number system with zero. What did the Ancient Jews invent?

Just a little question.

Well done !

stanley Jerusalem

Ganpat Ram
April 1st, 2009 7:11pm
"What did the Ancient Jews invent?

Just a little question"

Leviticus IX v.18.
Oh and Group Therapy
[Laws of Mourning- Sitting Shiva]
Leaving the corners of your field and dropped sheaves of corn for the poor thwidow and the orphan and inter alia a System of Communal laws extant till today and employed by almost the entire World but written about 1300 B.C.E.
But Kudos to the Hindus for inventing the concept of Zero.

Suffolkbor

Just louise :

Thank you for your reply .
I had no idea that New Zealand was put forward as a possible home for the Jewish people .

I do believe that Uganda was suggested as a possible home /haven at one time but was rejected for various reasons .

stanley Jerusalem

Sorry Leviticus XIX v. 18
Bloomin' clever clogs!

stanley Jerusalem

Suffolkbor
April 1st, 2009 8:52pm

Not to mention your favourite and mine for the occasional weekend away, Birobidjian.
Thank you Uncle Joe.

Donna Gardier

To Ganpat Ram

Aha I see!

Ganpat Ram

STANLEY JERUSALEM:

Many thanks for your interesting responses.

Thank you for appreciaing the Hindu contribution to civilization of inventing the zero, thus making complex mathematics and science possible. Einstein called it the greatest invention of all time.

Not bad for a bunch of despised polytheists and idol-worshippers.

You must not misunderstand me. My admiration for the Jews, ancient and modern, is profund. The Bible is so well written it is my favourite reading.

I have risked unpopularity in my work place by sticking up for Israel durig the recent wars in Lebanon and Gaza. A Jewish friend I have asks me when he wants to ascertain some fact or other about Israeli political history.

However, I would be dishonest if I pretended that I admire monotheism's influences on human history. It has made peoples who have adopted monotheistic religions intensely intolerant. Its contemporary effect via characters like Bin Laden are not to be recommended.

The worthy Spectator censor has suppressed some messages I tried to post stating no more than this. Why? I would just like Jewish intellectuals to have the humility to question the value of monotheism.

Ganpat Ram

Some typos above

stanley Jerusalem

Ganpat Ram
April 1st, 2009 9:58pm
Don't blame monotheism or even polytheism ,agnosticism or any other -ism. It's Political Man striving to acquire power that is to blame. Just as Bismark claimed war was politics by other means, so man has always employed whatever justification he had at his disposal for waging war. Some time ago a number of ultra-orthodox Jews were sent to prison in London for "manipulating" housing in the London Borough of Hackney to the advantage of their co-religionists and the disadvantage of the other 98% of the citizens of that borough. An outraged but somewhat under-educated member of the Jewish community in Finchley complained to his Rabbi about the behaviour of such orthodox Jews and his Rabbi's witty and profound reply was " They aren't orthodox Jews, they are just dressed like orthodox Jews."
This is no different to politicians and clerics the world over using religion as a primer and catalyst for their own unscrupulous ends.Just think Crusades and Inquisition.
Having been brought up in England during the 40's and 50's I can assure you that your perception of Hindus as 'despised polytheists and idol-worshippers' certainly did not extend any further west than the Levant. The attitude of Europeans, Brits and North & South Americans were either entirely neutral or more often totally ignorant of Hindu practise and with the sole exception of Suttee, of which I doubt the majority of them had even been aware, Hindus were viewed as distant foreigners with their own values which neither disturbed nor impinged on daily life. The reaction of other religions in the sub-continent and nearby was, on the other hand, entirely different and just as Croatian Catholics loathed Serbian Catholics [and they all hated Jews, of course],the Muslims of your continent were 'uncomfortable' with the Hindu majority there.
Do not believe for a moment that Hindus are held in anything other than inquisitive disinterest, religionwise, in the West.The contrary is a chimera which will colour your attitudes and convert them to prejudice.That too is a big trap.

stanley Jerusalem

Ganpat Ram
April 1st, 2009 9:58pm
"A Jewish friend I have asks me when he wants to ascertain some fact or other about Israeli political history."
Do please tell him that neither Israelis nor Jews have any claims on the territory of Iraq nor on any other spot on the Arabian Peninsular. You appeared to have acquired some information which you mentioned previously concerning such claims. We may have lived there or travelled through there in the past but we have no claim whatsoever on such places. It might be more instructive to re-examine the sources of such mischievous and seditious "facts" which will tell you more about the sources than the so-called facts.

stanley Jerusalem

just Louise
April 1st, 2009 6:43pm
Thank you Louise. Just as always.

stanley Jerusalem

just Louise
April 1st, 2009 6:43pm
"Stanley, you have wit and wisdom in equal amounts;"
On second thoughts I do believe there is an insult in there, if I could only find it!

Donna Gardier

Many thanks just Louise.

stanley Jerusalem

This meeting of The Mutual Admiration Society is now at an end.
The next meeting will be after Wednesday next.
I'll make the Charoset.

Linda Smith

It is a fallacy that people living on a territory have a right to self determination. What actually happens in the world is that territory is held by power, political or military.

Recently the Falklands dispute reared its head again. Although Gordon Brown avers that the inhabitants have a right to self determination and the Falklands are therefore British, the Islands' Britishness has been maintained by War with Argentina.

Britain and France carved up the Middle East after the First World War because they won and had the power. Israel survives by maintaining military power over its enemies. Egypt and Jordan made peace with Israel because they realised Israel could not be beaten militarily. Other Arab States, Israel's erstwhile enemies, recognise that they have a common enemy, Islamism.

The present clamour for peace talks with the Palestinian Arabs are facile. As long as there is a possibility that Iran can build a nuclear bomb and challenge Israel's hegemony, the Palestinian Arabs are not going to agree to the 2 State solution presently on the table.

stanley Jerusalem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charoset

Go on! You know you want to!

stanley Jerusalem

Linda Smith
April 2nd, 2009 11:40am
A fallacy is an argument which seems convincing but is not logically sound. The truth of the conclusions of an argument does not determine whether the argument is a fallacy - it is the argument which is fallacious and by virtue of your argument none of us anywhere in the world has the right to self-determination and thus we ought to form an orderly queue outside the UN building and wait to be assigned a suitable territory. I assure you that we Israelis know how to queue and will not push in or in any way disrupt the orderliness of the queue. However when the bus comes along just watch us jump in front of everyone else. I believe Charles Darwin coined some suitable epithet to describe such behaviour and, thus far, we are living proof of its correctness.

Linda Smith

Stanley you posted : "..by virtue of your argument none of us anywhere in the world has the right to self determination"

"Rights" are human conventions. "Rights" change all the time according to who's making the rules, and that depends on who's got the power.

If people disagree with the "rights" makers, they obey, negotiate, go to war, on a continuum, depending on how strongly they feel about the issue at hand.

"...we ought to form an orderly queue outside the UN building..."

I am not describing what "should" happen, I am describing what happens in practice. People obey, disobey, ignore the UN as they see fit.

If you respond to this comment, I may not be able to respond today as I have to go out shortly.

Henry Sidgwick

I am self-indulgent, no doubt - but I want one last time to try to enunciate what I take to be a moderate criticism of Israel.

I came to Melanie Phillips' blog to find a robust and reasoned defence of Zionism and Israel. The article she quotes here is certainly not it. Nor is any other contribution so far. I have learned a lot over the last several weeks. But the editing of history has been too tendentious (not that I expect everyone's reading of history to agree with mine - far from it). And the partial blindness to Israel's current behaviour has been disconcerting. (I suspect it is wilful: the Israeli press is one of the most vigourous in the world.) All this is justified by a strong feeling of entitlement.

And yet, what fuels this feeling of entitlement?
- ancient history, which cannot determine contemporary international relations (think of the mayhem it would cause on every continent)
-religion, which can have no purchase on non-believers
-the whims and self-interest of imperialists, which the victims have no reason to obey except superior force (big nations do what they want; little nations do what they have to).

The initial impetus for Zionism, as I understand it, was the realization among Jews in Europe that the Enlightenment was not, as promised, going to end discrimination and persecution. But the injustice to Jews in Europe cannot justify Zionism, that is, the taking of someone else's land (as the rabbis sent to reconnoitre reported back: " the bride is beautiful, but she is already married to another man").

I hesitate to discuss the Holocaust on a blog. It seems somehow disrespectful. But the advocates of Zionism raise the subject incessantly. The Holocaust taught the survivors that they cannot rely on others for their defence. It also gave rise to a widespread conviction in Europe that reparation, however inadequate it would necessarily be, was due. The Zionists argued that a state of Israel was the only defence. And their demand for a state was acceded to, in part as reparation. Yet the reparation took the form it did only because the Great Powers could disregard the rights of the indigenous population.

The notion of a state's "right to exist" has little meaning. There is no "right" for Israel to exist, any more than for the USA, or anywhere else. But that is entirely beside the point: the state of Israel does now exist and has millions of citizens with rights, like the citizens of any other state, and like the stateless.

But the state of Israel managed to make room for itself only by doing an injustice to the indigenous population, who are entitled to reparation (a claim supported by international law in the form of the UN and International Court of Justice, whose authority Israel cannot just accept when it suits). Reparation is also due, for example, to the descendants of the slaves on whose suffering our prosperity was built, and to the native americans. But here is reparation that can be made in practice with relatively little difficulty (at least in comparison to the other two cases). Here is reparation that would serve the very practical purpose of making peace.

But Israel continues to make room for itself and to appropriate resources by doing an injustice to the indigenoous population. Again, this is against not simply some notion of natural justice but against international law.

It may be that the ruling elite in Israel thinks it can get all it wants and keep it too. So it will continue its injustices, it will keep the spoils, and offer nothing in reparation. And it will defy its neighbours, who are neither willing nor able to do much about it.

I agree with those who say that security for the Israeli people is more likely to be achieved by an accomodation - by negotiation, which requires concessions on territory and refugees.

Such an accomodation is more likely to be acceptable if an effort is made to acknowledge the truth - to write an honest history that tells of the triumphs of Zionism but also the costs to others; and to face up to Israel's current behaviour as a flourishing country that yet oppresses the Palestinians and relies on outside sponsorship and subsidy.

And yet there is no sign of any such thing here. For the supporters of Israel, Israel is always right, Arabs are always to blame, and those who disagree are Jew haters. This is no way to conduct a reasonable discourse. If it is any reflection of the sentiment in Israel's governing class, heaven help us all.

Brute force is very useful for many things, but peace requires negotiation and compromise.

As I said, this is intended as an account of the case made by moderate critics against Israel. It is a simplified, indeed simplistic, version, no doubt in error on some points. But what is the moderate defence of Israel? Can it exculpate Israel from what on the face of it are illegal acts and wanton slaughter? (Hint: "moderate" defence does not mean vituperation.)

Many pro-Israeli contributors say that all they want is peace. How do they propose to get it?

Ganpat Ram

Stanley Jerusalem;

By now you have surely realized that my advocacy of a justified Israeli claim to Iraq, Sinai and Saudi Arabia on biblical grounds was just a way of ridiculing the demented Melanie Phillips "argument" claiming that Jews were hard done by when Winston Churchill assigned Jordan to the Arabs.

Neither the British nor any other non-Jewish authority ever suggested more than that the Jews should be allowed a homeland IN Palestine - no specific borders or even state structures were laid down, nor was it ever suggested that this should be at the expense of the existing Arab majority. Since the Jews are settled there now, the world has to accept it.

That's all, Melanie. No sane person thinks you are entitled on biblical grounds to return after two thousand years and claim Jordan. Try to be sane for a little while at least. Your narcissistic whining is getting tedious even for me, a supporter of Israel.

As for you, Stanley, what makes you think peoples other than the Jews have no traditions and ideals of social justice to drawn on? Do you know that even the cruel Muslim rulers of India had the custom of remitting tax on the peasantry in times of famine? Do you realize that many African tribes had traditional arrangements to care for widows and orphans and had no pauper class? Do you know that the Ancient Hebrews had the custom of stoning women accused of adultery? Don't claim too much for yourself, Stanley. It just invites ridicule.

As for monotheism, I am not surprised that you evade admitting its clear connection with intolerance of an unprecedented kind. If people say, "There is only one god and he is MINE not yours", that's a very divisive stand, guaranteed to create bitterness. We Hindus have paid a heavy price for the resulting destruction of our cultural heritage - all those "idols".

stanley Jerusalem

Linda Smith
April 2nd, 2009 1:38pm the moving goalpost syndrome then " Abandon hope all ye who enter here." Thank you Dante.
"I am not describing what "should" happen, I am describing what happens in practice."
Yes and so am I. It boils down to survival of the fittest. The best propaganda machine won't necessarily produce the best war machine, at least it hasn't to date, thank God. Neither will the best propaganda machine guarantee veracity which in these ever-changing perameters has to mean something, for if truth turns out to be 'negotiable' then we might as well all go home.

Linda Smith

Stanley: it does boil down to the best war machine. And on this planet, it alway has. On my way out the door now - and I'm late because I spend so much time on the Spectator website!

stanley Jerusalem

Ganpat Ram
April 2nd, 2009 1:46pm
Please tell me when you are not in such an excited state. All the gaskets appear to be blowing simultaneously. I am desperately relieved to hear that other religious systems in the world have arrangements for the underprivileged in their midst as well as the Jews. But you did ask what we Jews had contributed to mankind excluding naturally the number zero which you have correctly claimed for all Hindus, and I obliged by giving a short list of possibles. Well since I am sure that Hinduism has contributed the gentle art of meditation through relaxation and inner focus, I strongly recommend it to your worn-out gaskets.To continue our dialogue on this thread demands of us a clear dispassionate adherence to certain principles of decency and clarity and I am sure you would not depart from those any more than I.Closer study of Jewish texts from ancient times might reveal to you that the sanctions against adulterous women were so stringent as to never have been implemented. The conditions laid down for successful prosecution of same being so stringent as to have virtually never been successfully achieved. Anyway, remember the famous line from Jesus, born of a virgin,to the woman taken in adultery; 'Let him who is without sin among you cast the first stone. Oh no, mother, not you. Put the stone down and go home.'

Linda Smith

H Sidgwick bigotted as ever.

stanley Jerusalem

Linda Smith
April 2nd, 2009 3:03pm

"H Sidgwick bigotted as ever."
Linda - Go out, already!

Donna Gardier

Hahaha stanley Jerusalem. Please continue to ignore Dante's advice. : )

phil

Ganpat Ram apropos the stoning of Jewish ladies ,you may have heard the story of the Jewish salesman travelling around and arriving at a local bordello he was told he could choose any girl from twelve rooms but not number seven .after checking out all the girls he decided it had to be number seven and was so pleased he gave the madam a big tip and when asked which girl pleased him so much he shamefacedly admitted it was number seven ,the madam was furious and said I told you not to go in there she died five hours ago .the salesman apologised profusely and told her he was sorry but that he thought she was Jewish and it had felt home from home ,so you can see Ganpat there really was no necessity for stoning as adultery never occurred -Sorry Stanley to intrude on such a serious discussion ,nobody takes any notice when I write common sense :)

phil

Stanley please explain to henry s that the Palestinians are not looking for reparations ,they seek only the destruction of the Jews AND Israel ,and that has gone on since the first day of its birth .,notwithstanding the atrocities carried out before that date .Can he not see that or worse still does he not want to .?

Ganpat Ram

Phil:

I am not interested in your anti-semitic trash.

My discussion with Stanley is a serious one.

Ganpat Ram

Stanley:

It is very easy to allow religious sentimentality to get the better of one and idealise an ancient society in which one does not have to live as the fount of all the virtues.

The Muslims do this all the time, proclaiming that the seventh century Arabian society presided over by Mohammed is the ideal society to which we should all return.

I am not impressed when you say that the ancient Israeli law calling for the stoning of women accused of adultery was almost never practiced. This is too much like the rulers of places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia today who say we should not worry about their laws calling for the execution of apostates from Islam because it doesn’t actually happen. If these laws are inoperative may I know why they were enacted?

How did women feel about the stoning law? I only have your word for it that the stoning never happened. Why was the law there then? Its very existence proves that ancient Israel must have been a society severely repressive of women. If the law was so harmless, why not enact it today?

Besides, there was slavery in ancient Israel. Have you an argument explaining that away too?

This passion for finding the origins of modern justice in ancient Israel is absurd. The decent status in Western countries today for human beings is the result of the Industrial Revolution, which for the first time in history created societies with enough wealth to make a decent standard of life for all and enlightened values possible. It is also the result of the Western heritage of a tolerant secular culture that was able to overcome the appalling intolerance imported to the West from the Middle East in the shape of Christianity.

The Jews, after living so long in a secular and economically advanced West, imbibed liberal values, which is why Israel is a tolerant society compared to its Arab neighbours. Had the Israelis never left the Middle East, Israel today would be no different in its levels of tolerance to Arab nations.

phil

Ganpat Ram this is precisely why you do not understand Stanley .we are able to laugh at ourselves !! if you havnt worked it out I am Jewish so hardly anti-semitic -when jewish ladies are stoned it is on pot .

Ganpat Ram

STANLEY:

It is very easy to allow religious sentimentality and cultural pride get the better of one and idealise an ancient society in which one does not have to live as the fount of all the modern virtues.

Muslims do this often, proclaiming that the seventh century Arabian society presided over by Mohammed is the ideal society to which we should all return. I am not impressed.

Nor am I impressed when you say that the ancient Israeli law calling for the stoning of women accused of adultery was almost never put into effect. This is too much like the rulers of places like today's Pakistan and Saudi Arabia cosily assuring us that we should not worry about their laws calling for the execution of apostates from Islam since the exections don't really happen.

The obvious question that arises is: in that case why are such laws enacted and kept on the statute books?

How did women feel about the stoning law? I only have your word for it that no stoning to death actually happened. Was it not to intimidate and cow women that such a law was enacted?

Its very existence proves that ancient Israel must have been a society severely repressive of women.

If the law was so harmless, why not have it today?

Besides, there was slavery in ancient Israel. Have you a smooth argument to explain that away, too?

This passion for tracing the origins of modern justice and enlightenment to ancient Israel is absurd. The humane status in Western countries today for human beings is the result of the Industrial Revolution, which for the first time in history created societies with enough wealth to make a decent standard of living for all and enlightened values practicable. It is also the result of the Western heritage of a tolerant secular culture owing much to the Graeco-Roman civilization, that fortunately was strong enough to eventually overcome the appalling intolerance imported into the West from the Middle East in the shape of Christianity.

The Jews, after living so long in secular and economically advanced Western societies, imbibed liberal values, which is why Israel is a tolerant society compared to its Arab neighbours. Had the Israelis never left the Middle East, Israel today would be no more tolerant than the Arab nations.

Jews, in short, owe their liberalism to the West, not the other way round.

I hope the Spectator's censor won't suppress my reasoned message. There is nothing remotely anti-semitic in it.

Ganpat Ram

Sorry about the double posting above. It was unintentional. I thought the first message had been censored.

I am grateful to The Spectator for hosting my argument.

stanley Jerusalem

Ganpat Ram
April 2nd, 2009 5:46pm
"How did women feel about the stoning law? I only have your word for it that the stoning never happened."
Yes you have only my word for it. Hmm, I wonder what that's worth? Now as I understood it back in 1957 from a Christian ex-headmaster of the British Grammar School in Alexandria after he had been kicked out by Nasser, "The truth is what they think you want to hear."
Is that what you want,Ganpat Ram? Recorded in our books of law it is said that a Sanhedrin which sentenced someone to death was known as a 'Murderous Sanhedrin,' not a title any judge would be proud to bear one would think. Still, it hardly ever happened. The reason being that the offending individual had to be warned by witnesses several times and then the offending act had to be seen by those witnesses so that they could give evidence in court as to what they had seen. If found guilty, those very witnesses were the ones who had to do the stoning. So think about it, how often do you imagine all of the above took place? Of course there were laws with proscribed punishments. As deterrents at best and as punishments were those deterrents unsuccessful and all of the above rigmarole meticulously followed. Are you aware that for setting fire to her Majesty's Dockyards in Great Britain today the punishment is hanging? Well it is and it has yet to be changed. So how many dock burners have been hanged in your recollection? But the law remains on the Statute Book. Just because life is cheap in some societies, it does not follow as a consequence that the same values apply elsewhere. Catholics consider an embryo to be human, Jews consider the pregnant mother the more deserving of saving if, God forbid, a choice need be made.We all have our rules for the betterment of mankind not to control it, but to safely order it. Cherry-picking arcane quotations from the scriptures is but a game and as such may be played by more than one should it seem to be worthwhile.Did I deem it necessary, I might fill pages of this blog with minutiae covering the honour and respect due to women as prescribed by ancient Jewish Law, which is to say current Jewish Law.It is not a matter of casting pearls before swine, even though it sometimes feels like it. It is a matter of illustrating with clarity that a little learning is a dangerous thing. No-one is interested in feeling superior, we are all made in God's image and anthropomorphism aside, it is our job to behave in as Godly a manner as we know how. Every Sabbath when an orthodox Jew bless, his prayer includes a mention of the fact that we Jews should be considerate of the stranger because we too were strangers in a foreign land[Egypt]. This is meant to keep us grounded in reality and be aware of our environment. Do you know that only Jews pray for the welfare of the Queen and the Royal Family centrally in their Sabbath morning Synagogue prayers? Who else does? It's not for external consumption or to show off or even as the behest of the country in which we find ourselves living. it's because we love life and rejoice in it. We also love argument since it opens our minds and even our hearts.
No Jew would ever invent zero. It's just too negative. Like the sound of one hand clapping, I think. I rejoice in the opportunity to boast of the humanity and love my religion gives me and I therefore thank you for that opportunity you have given me so to do.

stanley Jerusalem

phil
April 2nd, 2009 6:07pm
"when jewish ladies are stoned it is on pot"
How I do so wish we had met earlier, phil.

Ganpat Ram
April 2nd, 2009 7:24pm

"Sorry about the double posting above."

No need to apologise , the emphases are just about apparent after a second run through.

stanley Jerusalem

phil
April 2nd, 2009 4:45pm
"Can he not see that or worse still does he not want to?"
Quite.[At the risk of boredom - not listening; rearranging own prejudices.]

phil

stanley Jerusalem I know we both like to have a joke but I must say your last post was magnificent ,and a view of how I was brought up to practice my religion ,with love and compassion for all people -thank you .

Barbara

Ganpat Ram,

The Eternal One, Blessed be He, revealed Himself to Abram, and knowledge of Him thus came to the world He created. Staying with other gods doesn't change the fact that the Holy God who exists outside of time and place is our Parent, nor would it change basic human nature - instead of fighting about God, men would fight about their gods. The Greeks were hardly peaceful, nor were the Romans, nor are other polytheists such as Hindus.

Each individual human being is born with free will, and the ability to choose between good and evil. This is God's gift to each person. The Islamists, and their fellow travelers have purposely chosen evil. That they inflict their choices on the rest of humanity is reprehensible, but it is not God's fault.

stanley Jerusalem

Barbara
April 3rd, 2009 2:30am
"That they inflict their choices on the rest of humanity is reprehensible, but it is not God's fault."
But if He gives us free will then it is His fault, surely?
The last word of the communal 'Confession' on Yom Kippur is "תעתענו" which translates as "we have been led astry" so who's fault is that?

phil

Ganpat Ram did I see -sorry phil?or have you made a run for the hills?

stanley Jerusalem

phil
April 3rd, 2009 1:57pm

"Ganpat Ram did I see -sorry phil?or have you made a run for the hills?"
'The Pathan is a wily bird!"

stanley Jerusalem

I know! He'll throw up his hands in horror crying "I'm not a Pathan!"
Course 'e will, Sunshine!
Bloomin touchy, these forinners, ern't they? Original Tony'll tell yer.

Ganpat Ram

STANLEY:

If you seriously think that a law demandng that women accused of adultery be stoned in an ancient society like Isarel's 2000 years ago, dominated by a priesthood, is the same as a reduntant law in modern day Britain, then I rest my case.

You are awfully sure the law of stoning was never carried out. The Bible written by people who actually lived in that society, tells a different story.

Ancient Israel had slavery, too. Have you a smooth excuse for that?

What does your case prove? Only that those who idealise old retrograde social orders are much the same, no matter what religion they belong to. I have known Hindus who have argued that Suttee, the ritual burning of widows, was rare. In both cases, the victims are voiceless women.

I write for intelligent guys who will judge between our letters in terms of their quality, I think.

I also draw an important lesson for myself: Muslims have no monopoly of intransigent worshippers of the oppressive and archaic.

hadrian

Mention has been made earlier on here of the self-styled 'prophet' Hal Lindsay. I shouldn't bother listening to a word he says; by Biblical standards he is to be treated as a liar- he has repeatedly foretold events that failed to materialise and the Ot reserves the greatest condemnation for such charlatans.
Stanley- Rarely do I find myself in major disagreement with you but when you quote the poem ( Ogden Nash's?) of it being odd of God to choose the Jews, you go on to assume that Christian and current Jew have the 'same God'. That is hardly an honest or accurate assertion, however commonly held an opinion. Christianity's God is Triune, with Father, Son and Holy Spirit; The Son has become Incarnate to effect delivery of His people from their sins. Judaism, unless I'm mistaken, has no Triune Godhead and rejects Christ as divine Messiah. Thus the crucial difference between them, though superficially both old fashioned Reformed Protestant churches and synagogues share much in common in their worship forms.

Barbara

Ganpat Ram,

Even if there had been real stoning 3000 years ago (and the evidence is against it, as it happens), it wouldn't matter today - all rules of that sort were abrogated in the first few centuries of the Common Era, period. We no longer sacrifice animals, and we no longer have a High Priest. All of those days, thankfully, are gone.

Barbara

Stanley,

I don't know about you, but on Yom Kippur I am usually led astray by thoughts of corned beef on rye, and lox, cream cheese and bagels. And since I have free will, I usually have both as soon as possible after I leave temple!

barackobama

Melanie's interest in the history of what Britain did in 1921 and after is matched by her neglect of what the British Army achieved in 1915-18. Tens of thousands of British, Commonwealth and Indian Army soldiers died to drive the Ottoman Army from what is now Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.
Without British force of arms, particularly in 1917 and 1918, there would not have been a Palestinian mandate to argue about in the first place.
It may indeed be right to defame Britain in general and Churchill (a lifelong, committed Zionist) in particular for their actions during and after 1921, it is surely wrong to fail to acknowledge the bravery and sacrifices of hundreds of thousands who fought the Ottomans in the first world war and drove the Germans out of the Middle East in the second.
The question that has not been asked here is this: would the thousands of young Britons, Australians, Kiwis, South Africans, French and others who lie in cemeteries across the Middle East, if they were here today, now say their sacrifice was worth it?

Ganpat Ram

BARACKOBAMA:

May I know in exactly what way Churchill offended this time?

In setting aside Jordan, a territory occupied by Arabs for thousands of years and nearly 100 per cent Arab, for its Arab inhabitants?

A territory where even 2000 or more years ago Jews had only slight presence?

Setting aside the remaining part of Palestine again for its nhabitants, ovrwhelmingly Arab, with an extraordinry concession that Jews would be allowed to have a homeland IN it somewhere? Without prejudicng it existing population's interests?

Where did Churchill go wrong?

How mad does one have o get to so completely disregard the overwhelming bulk of the population of a country, existing there for thousands of years, and say one has the right to come from far off lands because one's ancestors were there 2000 or more years ago, and simply take over?

What would the world be if this principle was everywhere applied?

The descendants of the Philistines would have the right to take over Israel, by the same argument.

phil

Barbara-sad to say I rarely make it past 3 pm and if I remember your post next time 2.30 may be my limit -during my period of contemplation I will not have considered stoning or beheading anyone ,but I may give a brief thought to the intellectual giant known here as ganpat ram who has decided I am anti -semitic-perhaps even at the eleventh hour he will use his flying fingers to write an apology .Whilst he is thinking he can consider the opinion of my Hindu pals who I play golf with and who eat at my table -they think his words are those of a tw..t.

to all those who will be celebrating pesach -enjoy the matsoh

stanley Jerusalem

phil
April 4th, 2009 2:29pm
"during my period of contemplation I will not have considered stoning or beheading anyone "
Shame on you Chaver - you missed out 'burning and strangling.' as in - 'סקילה סרפה הרג וחנק' That should put the cat among the pigeons!

barackobama
April 4th, 2009 10:03am
"The question that has not been asked here is this: would the thousands of young Britons, Australians, Kiwis, South Africans, French and others who lie in cemeteries across the Middle East, if they were here today, now say their sacrifice was worth it?"
Firstly why would one wish to ask the question in relation bearing in mind the ties between the Ottoman Empire and the Germans fighting against the Allies in the Great War and secondly were the question to be answered by those who made the ultimate sacrifice, they might prefer to have fought so that an identifiably familiar civilisation would flourish in the land over which they fought rather than have it repopulated by those against whom they were fighting.

Hadrian
April 3rd, 2009 9:40pm

"Stanley- Rarely do I find myself in major disagreement with you "

Oh dear!

"but when you quote the poem ( Ogden Nash's?) of it being odd of God to choose the Jews,"

William Norman Ewer (1885 - 1976) was a British journalist, remembered mostly now for these few lines of verse.
" you go on to assume that Christian and current Jew have the 'same God'."
No I don't. I was just trying to raise a smile. It's a funny poem, isn't it?
"Thus the crucial difference between them"
Now wasn't that a pun?

Barbara
April 3rd, 2009 9:42pm
- " it wouldn't matter today - all rules of that sort were abrogated in the first few centuries of the Common Era, period."
By whom precisely and by what authority?
"we no longer have a High Priest. All of those days, thankfully, are gone."
As a Cohen I take strong exception to that remark! One has to retain a few ambitions, you know.
"I am usually led astray by thoughts of corned beef on rye, and lox, cream cheese and bagels"
Why are you thinking about these forbidden combinations if you are in Synagogue to pray for forgiveness and for a good year? If not, then why on earth are you fasting?
" And since I have free will, I usually have both as soon as possible after I leave temple!"
Hopefully that is after the termination of the Fast and anyway God loves a sinner!
And finally, you are absolutely correct. You don't know about me.

Ganpat Ram
April 4th, 2009 11:22am
"How mad does one have to get to so completely disregard the overwhelming bulk of the population of a country, existing there for thousands of years, and say one has the right to come from far off lands because one's ancestors were there 2000 or more years ago, and simply take over? What would the world be if this principle was everywhere applied? The descendants of the Philistines would have the right to take over Israel, by the same argument."

I apologise for your having to wait so long for my reply owing to what you described in a previous posting as 'worshippers of the oppressive and archaic' but here goes:- While it is true that we did live there over 2000 years ago, and I'm pleased to see that you don't disagree with that contention, there have been Jews living there continuously ever since as well, so it's not a matter of our turning up 5 minutes ago and saying 'Oy,you lot,Scarper!' Also the Philistines lived just in the Gaza area, south of Joppa and north of the Sinai Peninsula [which had not been claimed by Egypt at the time]. A place well-known to Samson [Book of Judges]and to King David [Books of Samuel]. But they most certainly didn't live in the rest of the Promised Land and even more certainly never laid claim to it.Were you able to find them today and they were willing, perhaps they would also want to live there again, who knows?

While we are at it, I have some comment to make on your previous posting of April 3rd, 2009 7:33pm

"Ancient Israel had slavery, too. Have you a smooth excuse for that?

Since this coming week marks the festival of Passover I shall do likewise in passing over your pathetic adjectival insult. The Vulgate translation of the Bible into Greek from its original Hebrew text contains a number of solecisms the most famous of which is in the translation of Moses' appearance on his descent from Mt. Sinai, after having received the Ten Commandments, as being 'horned.' A schoolboy howler which has given rise inter alia to many fine renaissance sculptures and paintings. [For the curious it should be 'radiant' ]. Similarly the word for servant was translated as slave. There is no word for slave in Classical or Modern Hebrew, only servant; that is, an individual contracted to work for a maximum period of seven years in order to expunge a debt or to support an otherwise impecuneous family. The terms and conditions of the contract are clearly defined in the Books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Sorry, no slaves, just servants. and no, we have not retrospectively Bowdlerised the Bible to remove all trace. Just another example of one of those Goyisher priests getting it wrong again. You know, like confusing celibate and celibrate.
Now are you about to accuse me of being an oleaginous individual who always manages to slip away from your carefully baited traps by the expedient of telling the truth? BTW we don't have redundant laws in Judaism and Judaic Law is a way of life not a means to martyrdom. And I didn't say the penalty of stoning wasn't carried out, I said it was remarkably,and understandibly infrequent.It is not a retrograde system of laws [whatever that might mean]. It was written as a guide for the everyday behaviour of men, women and even sometimes children and people still behave in precisely the same ways today as ever they did.
I would most definitely take issue with you on the frequency of making Suttee. It was certainly widespread during the British Raj in the 19th and early 20th centuries and even earlier this week it was reported in reliable British newspapers [ if that isn't an oxymoron], that a number of concerned Hindus living in the UK were pressing for licence to perform outdoor cremations, but hopefully not for that reason. We gave up the slaughter of animal sacrifices 1939 years ago, thanks to a Roman general called Titus [י"ש"ו ] and it has not been reintroduced, however should you wish to see it, just go to any suitable High Street in Southall, Greenford, Bradford or Smethwick and you will probably have a wide choice from which to select.
As far as 'writing for intelligent guys' is concerned be warned that such intelligence may well penetrate the superficial and clearly see the motivation in such provocative questioning though for my part giving a clear honest answer would suffice. Quite what is meant by "intransigent worshippers of the oppressive and archaic"
I'm afraid I have no idea since I am unable to recognise anything we have discussed as relating to such a description. You then have Suttee, the sound of one hand clapping and naturally Zero and I am left with a Law system which is enshrined in every civilised country in the Western World. Take your pick.

Barbara

phil,

Some of us will not be celebrating Pesach so much as cooking it - the next few days are the busiest time in a Jewish housewife's year.

As for me, one Pesach many years ago when I was a very little girl my father offered to eat my Hillel sandwich for me, as his father had done for him, but I insisted on eating it myself. My father laughed and told me I was a purist. It was the first time I had ever heard that word, and I cannot hear or use it now without thinking of him. That purism helps me get through those last few hours of Yom Kippur, although sometimes it is a close run thing.

Linda Smith

Ganpat Ram: "How mad does one have to get to so completely disregard the overwhelming bulk of the population of a country, existing there for thousands of years..."

Europeans took over the entire American Continent, Australia and New Zealand from the original inhabitants - so why shouldn't the Jews take over a country too?

stanley Jerusalem

Barbara
April 4th, 2009 10:34pm
Perhaps phil would last a bit longer if he thought about the taste of Maror[bitter herbs] rather than the delicious menu with which your imagination torments you.
Have a wonderful Pesach.

phil

Barbara please save me a pickled egg-have a good one -and stanley too of course .

stanley Jerusalem

phil - You have been away too long. English chip chops provide pickled eggs. Sedarim finish the first half with hard boiled eggs in salt water.Otherwise I shall think of you when I eat my Hillel Butty.Why should the Earl of Sandwich snatch the credit from the man who reminded us of the "love thy neighbour" clause?"

stanley Jerusalem

Linda Smith
April 5th, 2009 12:08am "Europeans took over........from the original inhabitants - so why shouldn't the Jews take over a country too?"
The Jews took it back and not away, and occupied empty, barren,desolate land, malaria infested swamps and desert.They employed what local arabs there were in addition to their own kith and kin and consequently attracted more arabs from further afield who learned of prospects of employment in an otherwise barren landscape. That's where the majority of the descendants of the arabs present today originated.The idea that the landowners of the middle and late 19th Century did not explain to their arab tenants that they had sold their land to Jews has been suggested to me together with the notion that those arabs perceived the white-skinned European and Russian Jews as colonising interlopers goes some way to explaining the resentment prevalent to this day.

Wm. Hazlitt

Stanley Jerusalem

Not as witty as usual, but just as wrong.

stanley Jerusalem

Wm. Hazlitt
April 5th, 2009 8:59pm

Stanley Jerusalem

"Not as witty as usual, but just as wrong"
What all of it or an ickle bit? All this from someone who shuffled orf this mortal coil in 1884.

mochyn69

OK folks, so you've had your fun. Now how about some real solutions?

stanley Jerusalem

mochyn69
April 6th, 2009 7:49am

2OK folks, so you've had your fun. Now how about some real solutions?"

I say, steady on old fella! This is a discussion forum. Ocasionally we stray orf the subject but we mostly discuss.
We don't do solutions. We have elected representatives who do that for us [ God help us!]

phil

stanley what are the eggs that also arrive coloured tan -we always had white and tan and they tasted different

stanley Jerusalem

phil - those wot 'ad hens in the yard during the war knew that Light Sussex produced white- shelled eggs and Rhode Island Reds and Buff Orpingtons produced rust-coloured shells. Need I say more? White Leghorns - white, Black Leghorns - also white and Bantams - just small eggs.
Ducks - pale turquoise , but the duck stank, so we ate well for a week or so.I never knew about roast chicken until long after the war. What use did one have for cockerels? Noisy layabouts! Bit like Carl and wee Georgie, actually; more sound than sustance, but we digress.

phil

Stanley as you are my respected friend I have done the necessary research ,the fruits of which I hope you will enjoy .the eggs are known as hamin eggs (spelling optional) and are eggs hard boiled with onion skins and they become tasty and tanned ,served of course in salted water with matsohs they are a delight ,but not a patch on chopped liver with hinishe shmaltz and ugekies -let me know how you get on :)

phil

stanley just an afterthought ,wouldnt it be fun to put carl in a jar with onion skins until he got a tan and cover the laird in shmaltz so that he could grease up and down the walls of Glasgow university like a lump of lard ,but tasting so much better .

stanley Jerusalem

I would like to introduce a comment made by my son in America concerning the status of the Middle East.Vis-à-vis the Arab-Israeli conflict, I am struck by how often the arguments I hear can be boiled down to “well they started it”. It is even more common than the “we were here first” argument. But rarely have I heard anyone consider the idea that the whole bloody conflict started with an enormous series of understandable mistakes from both sides. The following is taken from a book by Rabbi Michael Lerner called “Healing Israel/Palestine, A Path to Peace and Reconciliation”. It is interesting that to those who have grown up within the dominant Zionist narrative, this will invariably sound weighted in favour of the Palestinians because those who are familiar with the Palestinian experience invariably feel just the opposite. This tells me that the difficult task of being as fair as possible to both sides is being accomplished as well as is conceivably possible.
Jews did not return to their ancient homeland to oppress the Palestinian people, and Palestinians did not resist the creation of a Jewish state out of hatred of the Jews. In the long history of propaganda battles between the Zionists and Palestinians, each side has at times told the story to make it seem if the other side was consistently doing bad things for bad reasons. In fact, both sides have made and continue to make terrible mistakes. Yet it is also true that both sides can make a reasonable case for their choices, given the perceptions they had of their own situation and those who opposed them. As long as each side clings to its own story, and is unable to acknowledge what is plausible in the story of the other side, peace will remain a distant hope.
What is sorely needed is a perspective that seeks to highlight the way that decent human beings on both sides could end up perceiving each other as irreconcilable enemies, and how, within their own frameworks, they became blind to the legitimate needs of the other side and the ways each side contributed to the current mess.
The first step in the process of healing is to tell the story of how we got where we are in a way that avoids demonization. We need to learn how two groups of human beings, each containing the usual range of people – from loving to hateful, rational to demented, idealistic to self-centred – could end up feeling so angry with each other.
From 1880 to 1950 the Jewish people jumped from the burning buildings of Europe. We jumped not because we wished to, but because of a legacy of hate that culminated in our being the victims of genocide. And we landed on the backs of Palestinians. The Palestinians and the Arab peoples of the Middle East were in the midst of a struggle to free themselves from colonial powers and were afraid of the Zionist dream of the creation of a Jewish state right on top of their own fledgling Palestinian society. They viewed the Jews who came to Palestine not as desperate refugees but as Europeans introducing European cultural assumptions, economic and political arrangements, and thereby extending the dynamics of European domination. So, the Arabs in general, and those who lived in Palestine in particular, were unwilling to give the Jews a safe place to land.
The Palestinians used acts of violence and the influence of Arab states with the British to deny Jews a refuge. Their insensitivity to the Jewish people and our needs helped create a dynamic in which Jews actually became what the Palestinians had feared: a group that would cause Palestinians to become refugees. Years later, Jews responded in kind when we refused to provide Palestinians with a way to return to their homes when it was we who had power.
As Jews established our state in our ancient homeland, we hurt many Palestinians and evicted many from their homes. When the Palestinian people cried out, we could not hear their pain – because we believed that the genocide we had barely survived proved that our pain was so much greater. Israelis defended themselves against knowing how much violence they had done to the Palestinian people by telling themselves that the Jewish people had never done anything to the Palestinian people even vaguely comparable to the genocide that was done to us in Europe.
But from the standpoint of the Palestinian people, the pain they suffered at our hands was very real. Yet, because we are still so traumatized by our own pain, we Jews still have difficulty acknowledging that we have caused any pain to the Palestinians, just as Palestinians continue to be unable to acknowledge the pain they caused to the Jewish people when it was we who were the powerless and homeless. That denial on both sides has made it impossible for each of us to talk honestly to each other, or to find a path to heal the wounds. Neither of us can acknowledge the pain we caused each other, and instead, we continue to inflict new pains that intensify the old. For decades Israel has ruled over the Palestinian people, and as Palestinians responded to that Occupation with armed struggle and acts of terror against Israeli civilians, Israelis have increasingly used methods to secure the Occupation that violate international standards of human rights and make a mockery of the highest values of the Jewish tradition. Both sides act in ways that are cruel and insensitive to the other.

phil - had I realised you were referring to the inside of Sefardi Chulent eggs, I would have understood the reference to the eggs' colour rather than their shells' colour. Just shows how precise we need to be on this blog. No ambiguities here, son.
As far as the two chaleries you referred to are concerned, the treatment you suggest passt em az wie a hind tzitzekanfes.

stanley Jerusalem

phil - had I realised you were referring to the inside of Sefardi Chulent eggs, I would have understood the reference to the eggs' colour rather than their shells' colour. Just shows how precise we need to be on this blog. No ambiguities here, son.
As far as the two chaleries you referred to are concerned, the treatment you suggest passt em az wie a hind tzitzekanfes.

phil

stanley Jerusalem-that was powerful stuff,but I do not think anyone is listening to common sense .

Wm. Hazlitt

Stanley Jerusalem

"Not as witty as usual, but just as wrong"
What all of it or an ickle bit? All this from someone who shuffled orf this mortal coil in 1884.

That's more like it.

(P.S. I also appreciated the quotation from Rabbi Lerner, although neither side will find it entirely acceptable.)

stanley Jerusalem

Wm. Hazlitt
April 7th, 2009 11:02am
Just as phil said in the previous post.

phil

stanley Jerusalem enjoy the seder whilst hazlitt chews on the bitter herbs of sheer frustration -The knowledge that we consider him a fool will be nagging away whilst we will sing our songs .chag sameach whatever that might mean -I think its something nice ,hope so :)

phil

stanley we had a wonderful seder last night .kept the door open for hazlitt and co ,but they never came -ah well just more chremslach for me .saved some bitter herbs in case he changes his mind though .

Wm. Hazlitt

Stanley Jerusalem

I am apparently not allowed to ask, but I am genuinely intrigued: is "Phil" one of your comic creations? (So many of the contributors to this blog seem to be just too good to be true.)

stanley Jerusalem

phil
April 9th, 2009 10:27am

"stanley we had a wonderful seder last night .kept the door open for hazlitt and co ,but they never came" -
phil, you hold the door open to welcome the harbinger of good news, i.e. Elijah the Prophet [אליהו הנביא] not that defunct Victorian literary midget hazlitt or his Carolean or Glaswegian cohorts. The prayer which accompanies the door's opening is an invocation to the Deity to pour His wrath upon the nations who fail to recognise Him.The more peaceful-minded among us [I have chosen to do this since I was 8 and objected to the tenor of the other text] sing a welcome to Elijah who then enters and sips a little from the monster cup of wine specially poured for him. Like Santa, he is liable to become slightly squiffy from the imbibing of so many alcoholic offerings, but some responsible adult present has always ensured that the table is jerked sufficiently to 'spill' a little wine , thus satisfying all the littluns present.
The 'welcoming' ceremony for strangers is right up the other end, at the start, when we all say 'All who are hungry, enter and eat,'
[ כל דיכפין ייתי וייכול].
Apres Chremslech I trust you are not suffering from 'Pharoah's Revenge' otherwise known as a surfeit of Matzot.
A doctor of my acquaintance was called out on an emergency on just such an occasion to pump the stomach of an elderly lady of strict religious inclinations but no teeth and relatively large segments of the offending unleavened bread were recovered whole but soggy from the 'liquid' detritus.
"O tempus, O mores!" as we said in Dalston.

phil

stanley Jerusalem-was that a squeak outside from hazlitt trying to get in -most of the good grub has gone but there is still a little chai cak mit sibbilies left -oh where i come from we would have wished him a happy holiday ,I do not know about Dalston ,but in my shtetl gay caken offen yam would have sent him off to the sea with a funt to buy paper.

stanley Jerusalem

Wm. Hazlitt April 9th, 2009 12:55pm "I am apparently not allowed to ask"

Apparently you are and were he not the real thing one us would have had to have invented him. Fortunately his Mum took care of that for us some considerable time ago; out there....waiting for you to say something... anything... anything at all.
We're waiting for you...

stanley Jerusalem

Wm. Hazlitt
April 9th, 2009 12:55pm "So many of the contributors to this blog seem to be just too good to be true."

Oh I wouldn't say that unless you are being excessively modest.
phil, on the other hand, is so different in approach from me that I wonder that we ever agree.However, since we both treat with the same truth we could hardly do aught but agree every time. You may have noticed his style, not to mention his appalling punctuation, are quite different from mine, but I forgive him. He probably went to Cowper Street.Least said the better. I wouldn't have thought he would want it mentioned if he had.

stanley Jerusalem

phil
April 9th, 2009 7:17pm
"in my shtetl gay caken offen yam would have sent him off to the sea with a funt to buy paper."

A FUNT! We couldn't afford a funt for that! Sheer luxury! The nearest sea was Clapton Pond.
We had our Seder in't shoe box on't Motorway!and the News Chronicle was our source for Asher Yotzar Papper. And the youngsters today think they've got it hard!
If the moderator makes sense of this observation on Levantine Borders then and now I'll stuff my Kishke mit gribben and dance a kezutzke on the lawn.

stanley Jerusalem

Henry Sidgwick
April 2nd, 2009 1:42pm
"the partial blindness to Israel's current behaviour has been disconcerting. (I suspect it is wilful: the Israeli press is one of the most vigourous in the world.)"
Just noticed this earlier comment of Henry's [I may call you Henry, I hope.]
This has to be one of the funniest observations ever made on this or any other Blog dealing with the Middle East.
Do you have any notion whatever of the frustration felt by Israelis and both Jews and fellow-supporters around the world at the paucity, feebleness and ineptitude of the Israeli propaganda machine in general as well as the Israeli media?
Hopeless would be an enormous improvement. The desire of Western Jewish organisations to persist with their low profile 'diplomatic' approach taken together with the Israeli Governments' take it or leave it stance with a rare 'spokeaman' capable of giving as good as he/she gets is the norm, Henry.Your "vigorous" must describe the Proxima Centauri Jewish Chronicle or the Uranus edition of Haaretz, on second thoughts that's where our local Haaretz would appear to be published.

phil

stanley Jerusalem- sorry about my punctuation it was learned in a tyre repair shop next to the cheder ,unt der rebbe nisht sprechen da lingo.-Apart from which I have a continental keyboard ,billig,you know now that times are hard, and it doesnt seem to do apostrophes ,but for my shtickle mench hazlitt I will try harder.--hope he had a good trip to the sea and enjoyed the `packed lunch of chai cak mit sibbilies ,very tasty you know WM . I do not know what asher yotsar papper is but if my guess is right we used the guardian -Stan I think we have shut the messhugenne up by now .happy days !i cant imagine what Pete is making of all this but I hope its giving him a good laugh -he could of course buy a tape of yiddish/English by Michel Thomas who is the best language taecher there has ever been .not good on punctures though :)tsai gezunt chaver

phil

stanley Jerusalem YOU WILL SEE i SPELT TEACHER INCORRECTLY AND i AM HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM WITH THE WORD YOU /YUO and the cap lock -is there a cure for this -perhaps professor hazlitt could perform something useful for a change and tell me how to eradicate this twitch -a funt in new money is available for good advice and an extra half a bar if it works

stanley Jerusalem

phil - your reference to Michel Thomas whose deeply held conviction is that the biggest weapon in maintaining a free society is education and an educated citizenry.
So no hope for UK 2009 then.
[Universities claim A-Levels are no longer indication of suitability for admission]

stanley Jerusalem

phil - P.S. Perfectly adequate bilingual keyboards are available here in Jerusalem starting at £9.00. Take a boat from your Iberian castle and buy one.

phil

stanley Jerusalem only the gelt is the problem to getting there -the funt does not buy much these days ,so I will have to suffer the jibes of the punctuaters as I drown in the lonly sea of common sense alone -well more or less :)

Wm. Hazlitt

Stanley Jerusalem

I think you are wrong about Israel's propaganda machine. It is as extensive, hard-working and shrill as ever. However, Israel's actions are getting ever more difficult to justify.

phil

Wm. Hazlitt stop interrupting and spoiling sensitive and intelligent interchange -we have sent you on holiday with a nice package of things to eat-if you do not understand Yiddish try the local deli for the dishes I recommended to you and then the travel agent for directions to your holiday destination .Meanwhile my friend Stanley and I would appreciate less advice ,so keep shtum please ,ok?

Sweetie

phil, your comment about hamin eggs......dont you mean ham and eggs! You should never eat them, especially at Pesach!!

phil

sweetie if you serve them I will eat them :)its better than chai cak mit sibbiliesand much easier to find -hazlitts off now searching the deli,s at offen yam without luck- hag sameach